Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

TYNE AND WEAR BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 31 January.

DARTMOOR COMMONS BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 24 January.

ARDVEENISH HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. Secretary Younger presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Ardveenish Harbour; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Wednesday 23 January and to be printed. [Bill 116.]

FORTH PORTS AUTHORITY ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. Secretary Younger presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to the Forth Ports Authority; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Wednesday 23 January and to be printed. [Bill 117.]

FORTH PORTS AUTHORITY (No. 2) ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. Secretary Younger presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to the Forth Ports Authority (No. 2); And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Wednes-

day 23 January and to be printed. [Bill 118.]

INVERNESS DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. Secretary Younger presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Inverness District Council; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Wednesday 23 January and to be printed. [Bill 119.]

KIRKCALDY DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. Secretary Younger presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Kirkcaldy District Council; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Wednesday 23 January and to be printed. [Bill 120].

LOCHABER DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. Secretary Younger presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Lochaber District Council; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Wednesday 23 January and to be printed. [Bill 121.]

STRATHKELVIN DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. Secretary Younger presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Strathkelvin District Council; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Wednesday 23 January and to be printed. [Bill 122.]

WEST LOTHIAN DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. Secretary Younger presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to West Lothian District Council; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered on Wednesday 23 January and to be printed. [Bill 123.]

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Sugar

Mr. Strang: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from trade unions representing workers in the sugar beet industry regarding the European Economic Community Commission's proposal for a new sugar regime; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): In addition to correspondence, my right hon. Friend has received a delegation from unions representing workers in the beet sugar industry. He explained the importance that the United Kingdom attaches to the reduction of the Community surplus and to the Community's commitment to the ACP countries. He also explained our criticism of the present proposals of the Commission.

Mr. Strang: Will the Minister make it clear to the House that the Government are determined to resist a proposal which discriminates against Britain, and which threatens jobs and investment in the British Sugar Corporation? Further, will he confirm that the Government will not contemplate in the future any reduction in the 1·3 million tonnes which we import under the Loméconvention? That is part of our commitment to the developing world, and it is vital to employment in the cane refineries.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The answer is "Yes" to both points. In reply to the hon. Gentleman's second point, the Loméconvention is a commitment undertaken by the Community.

Mr. Body: Does not the Minister agree that it is important for the EEC to subscribe to the international sugar agreement? It would be impossible for the EEC to do that so long as it continues to dump up to 3 million tonnes of sugar on the world markets.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As my hon. Friend knows, we support the general

cutback of sugar production within the Community. We are concerned that its proposed cutback discriminates unfairly against beet producers in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Kimball: Is it not a fact that the post-1980 sugar regime is based upon wrong calculations of the British crop? Therefore, it is grossly unfair to the growers in the United Kingdom. Will the Minister bear in mind the value of sugar beet as a break crop, not only as a cash crop, for which oil seed rape is no substitute?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We have pointed out forcibly to the Commission, and shall continue to argue in the Council of Ministers, that the basis of the Commission's proposals is not representative of sugar beet production in the United Kingdom. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue our arguments.

European Community (Wine Production)

Mr. Hardy: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the volume of wine produced by European Economic Community member States and by the three applicant States in 1979; what is the expected volume of production in five year's time; and what is the volume of the current surplus.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Commission's provisional estimates for the 1979 wine harvest are at 167 million hectolitres for the EEC, and approximately 58 million hectolitres for the three applicant countries. Given the many uncertainties involved it is not possible to make sensible estimates of production five years hence. The Commission estimates the current surplus at between 6 million and 10 million hectolitres per annum.

Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister recognise that, on present trends and intentions over the next 15 years or so such a level of surplus will be achieved as to make the problems and cost of storage absurd, or alternatively, the promotion of consumption such as to lead to a part of the population of Western Europe becoming alcoholic by the end of 1990?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: That is why we supported the wine package proposed by the Commission, which strikes at the root of the problem in trying to get some of


the area of land currently used for the production of wine out of production. In the last negotiation, we achieved the reduction of the contribution to the net benefit of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Robert Atkins: What pressure is the Minister bringing to bear on the EEC to protect the interest of English wine, a fine commodity made in this country?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am glad to reassure my hon. Friend that the English wine producer is excluded from the restrictive measures proposed in the wine package. What we have achieved in the package—I reply to a point that I missed earlier in relation to this question—is an encouragement for the consumption of wine. Those who indulge in home making of wine are helped in the supply of musts from European countries.

Mrs. Dunwoody: As the EEC seems to want special pricing in oil, with cheap rates, will the Minister address himself to the question of getting cheaper Burgundy for Britain, and one or two Beaujolais along with it?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: That is an extremely interesting suggestion.

Agricultural Training Board

Mr. Myles: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when next he will meet the chairman of the Agricultural Training Board.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): I had a meeting with the retiring chairman last month. I and my noble Friend the Minister of State met the incoming chairman this morning.

Mr. Myles: When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of the Agricultural Training Board, will he ensure that his Ministry urges the board to concentrate on practical training, with the minimum of administrators?

Mr. Walker: Yes.

Mr. John Home Robertson: When the Minister next meets the chairman of the board, will he discuss the career structure in agriculture, particularly in view of the recommendations of the Northfield committee? What steps does he intend to take to make it possible for more new entrants to come into the industry, with

the prospects of becoming either managers or tenants of farms?

Mr. Walker: This is a very important subject. I do not think that it is necessarily a subject for the chairman of the Agricultural Training Board. We are considering the suggestions made by the Northfield committee. We are talking to the various parties concerned. Like the hon. Gentleman, I think that it is important to find ways of encouraging able young people to make a good career in this industry.

Sugar

Mr. Parry: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the present situation of African, Caribbean and Pacific sugar imports.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The guarantees on price and access given by the Community to ACP sugar producers are of indefinite duration and are separate from the current renegotiation of the Community's own internal sugar regime.

Mr. Parry: With regard to the present 1·3 million tonnes imported from ACP countries, does not the Minister agree that, if this figure is not maintained, we may see further closures in the sugar cane port refineries, putting 1,700 jobs at risk at the Liverpool Tate and Lyle refinery? Will the Minister do everything in his power to ensure that this does not happen?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I wholly appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says, having the day before yesterday met trade union representatives from the cane sugar refineries throughout the United Kingdom. I repeat that the commitment of the 1·3 million tonnes is a commitment of the European Economic Community, and it is of indefinite duration.

Mr. Mason: I am sure that the Minister will agree that the current cost of the sugar regime of£400 million means that it is in need of a serious re-think. The dumping that has been taking place in the Third world has had devastating effects on those countries which are dependent on the export of sugar for their survival. But, in spite of that, I hope that when the Minister is negotiating during the course of the next two or three weeks, he will bear in mind that


we must have no conflict in our own country between the beet producers and the sugar cane processors. All feel that they are in this conflict and want to stand together.
Secondly, I hope that the Minister will bear in mind—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has been making a statement of his opinions. Will he ask a question?

Mr. Mason: During the course of the negotiations, bearing in mind the interests of both the beet producers and the sugar cane processors, I hope that the Minister will be able to assure the House that he will make no efforts to interfere with the 24 per cent. public interest holding in the British Sugar Corporation.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We believe that there is room within the United Kingdom to accommodate the commitments of the EEC under the Loméconvention and also to see an improvement in the proposals made by the Commission in relation to the sugar beet industry. We believe that there is scope for it, and I give the right hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance that we shall be working towards that end.

Mr. Buchan: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the present working of the European Economic Community sugar regime.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: No, Sir.

Mr. Buchan: Is not the cost of£400 million that we spend on maintaining a ridiculous 3 million tonnes surplus really at the cost of our overseas cane producers, many of whom are British Commonwealth members? Does not this pose a threat to the future of our cane sugar refineries because of the French pressure now in relation to Lomé?
Will the Minister give us a firm guarantee that there will be no cutback in employment in the cane sugar refineries, and no cutback in our relationships with Lomé.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman must have misheard my reply. I said that I was not satisfied with the current working of the regime. I repeat the assurances that I gave earlier. The

commitments under the Loméconvention are not only our commitments; they are the commitments of the European Economic Community. I can do no more than repeat the assurances that I gave earlier.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: When the Minister comes to negotiate the new sugar regime, will he bear in mind that during the last two or three years many farmers and processors have invested substantial sums of money in lifting and processing equipment, and that a substantial reduction in the present sugar quotas will inevitably cause them very substantial financial hardship?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I acknowledge what my hon. Friend says, and reiterate that we believe that there is room for a proper cane sugar refining industry in this country, and also for beet processing and beet producing.

Mr. Mason: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last question I have posed, and give the House an assurance that during the course of this turmoil on sugar the Government have no intention of selling off the 24 per cent. public interest holding in the British Sugar Corporation?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the question of Government holdings in bodies such as the British Sugar Corporation is one that is under consideration.

Mr. Freud: Will the Minister bear in mind that sugar beet is a traditional East Anglian crop, and that there is no way that my constituency farmers will go on planting beet unless they have confidence in the commercial viability of that crop? Will he therefore make an early statement assuring my constituency farmers of the wisdom of continuing to plant beet?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I have already made many statements this afternoon giving that precise assurance.

Mr. John MacKay: Does my hon. Friend's dissatisfaction extend to the possible non-availability of sugar beet pulp as a food substance for the hill farmer?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Sugar beet production in this country is important not only as a break crop, as was mentioned earlier, but also in relation to its by-products.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Is the Minister aware that unless the proposed cuts in the beet sugar quotas are implemented—and perhaps even more cuts are needed—there will be further closures and redundancies in the sugar cane refining industry on Merseyside, and that this will be bad not only for our Commonwealth suppliers of sugar cane but for the people of Merseyside, leading to more unemployment?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am totally conscious of the problems in this connection, but, as I said earlier, we believe that within Europe there is need to cut back production of sugar from beet. However, we believe that that must be done in a way that is fair to our producers and to our industry.

Untreated Milk

Mr. Woolmer: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what bodies and interests he is consulting in the course of his consideration of Government policy towards untreated milk.

Mr. Peter Walker: I have met representatives from farming and will be meeting those of dairy interests. Their views, together with those we have received directly or indirectly from other interested organisations and individuals, will be taken fully into account.

Mr. Woolmer: I thank the Minister for his reply. Is he aware that outbreaks of serious stomach illness continue to occur, associated with the consumption of untreated or ineffectively treated milk—for example, in Cambridge, Lincoln, Aberdeen and South Bedfordshire in the last 12 months, to give but four examples?
Will the Minister at an early stage confirm that he intends to ban the sale of untreated milk in 1983? In the meantime, will he properly warn the public so that, for example, 3,000 people in South Bedfordshire—most of them children—will not be subject to severe illness?

Mr. Walker: There is a whole range of product areas where illnesses have occurred and there are problems. It is important that any solution ensures that people know the risks involved at the time of purchase. To eliminate the right of people to purchase is another question.

Mr. Peter Mills: Will the Minister give this necessary freedom to rural areas in particular? As long as the bottle is clearly marked it should be left to the responsibility of the person who drinks from it. If my right hon. Friend wants an example of someone who has drunk untreated milk for several years, he need only to look at the hon. Member for Devon, West, who does not look too bad.

Mr. Walker: That is a matter of opinion. However, there is strong feeling on this topic and we are trying to find a rational and sensible solution. Whilst I agree with my hon. Friend that it is perfectly reasonable that people should be allowed to purchase milk if they know the risks involved, there are none the less problems—for example the supplying of hotels—that are more complicated. I hope that we will make a detailed announcement soon.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Following the excellent supplementary question of my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills), does not the Minister agree that the hon. Member for Macclesfield is a picture of health? Does he not agree that in many rural areas treated milk is not available, and therefore the continuation of the supply of untreated milk is vital?

Mr. Walker: I think that perhaps the comparison is declining rather than improving. However, we have looked into this question carefully and we shall also consult other Departments involved in agriculture. I hope to make a positive announcement soon.

Milk

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the current regulations governing the import of milk into the United Kingdom.

Mr. Peter Walker: Imports of milk are subject to United Kingdom animal health legislation, and to our public health regulations, which lay down strict standards for the hygienic production, packaging and heat treatment of milk. There are also regulations covering the labelling and size of containers as well as the minimum fat content which imported milk must comply with.

Mr. Miller: Will my right hon. Friend and neighbour assure the House that there


will be no relaxation of standards? Should there be any move towards harmonisation of health standards through the EEC, will my right hon. Friend still insist on the treatment and packaging of imported milk for subsequent retail in premises licensed by local authorities?

Mr. Walker: In the only court case involved, the Advocate General of the European Court stated that we had every right to employ our own health regulations until a Community health regulation was made. I see no prospect of a Community health regulation until at least 1982. We then have a period of two years in which to comply with it. However, any health regulation that gained our agreement would have to maintain our present standards.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Referring to the question of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) as regards being a picture of health, is there any connection between a picture of health and mental health?

Mr. Lawrence: If, by 1984, there is harmonisation of the import of milk regulations, will the Minister assure us that he will do everything in his power to stop the abolition of doorstep deliveries?

Mr. Walker: Yes. Doorstep deliveries are vital to the consumer and producer in this country. We shall do everything possible to maintain those services.

Mr. Torney: As Britain has had such a rough deal from the EEC as regards sugar, textiles and many other commodities, does the Minister agree that we shall get a similar rough deal about the importation of milk? Does he further agree that the time has now come to negotiate our withdrawal from the EEC?

Mr. Walker: No, I judge that our milk is better and cheaper and that it is time to consider exporting to the EEC.

National Farmers Union

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when next he will meet the president of the National Farmers Union.

Mr. Peter Walker: I meet the president of the National Farmers Union frequently but have no specific plans at present for a further meeting.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As we suffer from a certain weakness in the marketing of our agricultural and horticultural products, and as my right hon. Friend announced last July that he was inviting certain prominent individuals to consider this problem, will he give some indication of the discussions that he has had with the president of the NFU, and those that he intends to have, in order to see what more the NFU can do to help the situation?

Mr. Walker: I am pleased to say that the NFU has announced that it is setting up, and has now set up, a new marketing division. It will concentrate heavily upon that aspect of British agriculture. We have also announced changes in the council for agricultural and horticultural co-operation that will encourage marketing co-operatives to a greater degree. A whole range of discussions are now taking place that I hope will improve our marketing effort.
The recent green pound devaluation means that next week the MCAs that have operated so heavily against us in the past will be down to 1·2 per cent. However, if sterling remains at its present level they will disappear altogether the following week.

Mr. Spearing: When the Minister next sees Mr. Butler, will he tell him that in order to maintain milk deliveries a good price is needed, not only for the farmer, but also for the distributor? Will he also correct his earlier statement and will he tell Mr. Butler that a second case is now in process at the European Court? If it goes against us, the Minister and milk deliveries will be in severe difficulties.

Mr. Walker: In fairness to Mr. Butler, neither he nor the NFU has ever disputed the necessity for the dairy industry to maintain margins in order to continue a door-to-door service. The NFU is well aware that the distribution of milk depends upon the maintenance of that service. The hon. Gentleman seems to show a certain enthusiasm for the prospects of the court case, but the only case that has taken place on the same question was summed up very clearly by the Advocate General in favour of the British position. I see no reason for change in the current case.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I do not wish to suggest that the Minister should impose his own view on the NFU or on the Country Landowners Association, but will he impress upon the president of the NFU that, unless he is prepared to reach agreement with the CLA about the future of inherited tenancies, there will be no hope of retaining the existing number of farms for let, let alone achieving an increase?

Mr. Walker: Yes, but I shall always also impress upon the president of the CLA the importance of coming to an agreement with the NFU.

Mr. Foulkes: When the Minister next meets the president of the NFU, will he explain to him that it is no longer possible to buy a British manufactured combine harvester because of the closure of Massey Ferguson at Kilmarnock? Will he further explain to the president, as well as to the House, what he and the Secretary of State for Industry are doing to encourage the manufacture of agricultural implements in Britain?

Mr. Walker: I agree that the farm machinery industry is important in Britain and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry is giving attention to that problem now.

European Community (Council of Agriculture Ministers)

Mr. Marland: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when next he will attend a meeting of the Council of Agricultural Ministers of the European Economic Community.

Mr. Spence: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to meet Commissioner Gundelach of the European Commission.

Mr. Latham: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to attend a meeting of the European Economic Community Council of Agriculture Ministers.

Mr. Peter Walker: At the next Council of Agriculture Ministers meeting, to be held next Monday.

Mr. Marland: When my right hon. Friend meets the Council of Ministers,

will he tell it that he will not accept the EEC's discriminatory proposals on the co-responsibility levy on milk? Will he also assure us that he will not accept the proposal of the EEC for a new super-levy on all United Kingdom milk production?

Mr. Walker: I gather from recent talks with the Commissioner that the original proposals are being altered and we look forward to examining new proosals. Like last year, there is no way that we accept any co-responsibility levy that discriminates against British dairy producers.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call first those whose questions are being answered.

Mr. Spence: When the Minister meets the Commissioner, in addition to the vigorous protest that he will make as regards sugar beet—which is important in my constituency—will he also add equally vigorous protestations lest anything should be done through EEC regulations to affect the potato growers who are also important in my constituency?

Mr. Walker: There are no proposals on potatoes before the Council for the coming week, but we shall look to the interests of potato growers in this country when they occur. In the meantime, we shall maintain the position.

Mr. Latham: Has there been a discernible improvement in the position since my right hon. Friend last answered questions on the import of sheepmeat to France? If not, what is he doing about it?

Mr. Walker: No. There has been a deterioration. Last week the French Government decided, for the first time since the original Court decision, to put an import levy of 43p per kilo on British lamb, which was totally against the Court's decision. As a result, the Commission took France to court last Monday, and I shall be doing all that I can to see that the case is taken as speedily as possible. The Commission expressed its hope to me that France was moving towards a position where she would comply with the European Court's decision,


but the actions of 10 days ago are in absolutely the opposite direction.

Mr. Grimond: Will the Minister assure the House that, when he sees Commissioner Gundelach next week, he will be fully briefed about the fishing industry, which I take it will be on the agenda? Has he seen the fishermen's associations about the serious position that is rapidly developing in the North Sea?

Mr. Walker: I am seeing the fishermen's associations next Wednesday and I saw other groups connected with the fishing industry last night. It is an Agriculture Council meeting next week and fishing will not be discussed, but there is a Fisheries Council meeting at the end of January. I am pursuing a policy that before every meeting of the Fisheries Council, I meet with the industry as a whole.

Mr. Mark Hughes: Does the Minister accept that, as long as we maintain the position that everyone else's sugar regime for beet and proposals for a co-responsibility levy are wrong, the chances of the British taxpayers' burden being alleviated through the CAP are strictly limited?

Mr. Walker: If I may say so, the CAP in a number of areas discriminates heavily against Britain. To say that solutions to the CAP problem can be achieved through measures that discriminate still further against Britain would be a mistake, and it is not a policy that I will pursue.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Will the Minister say whether at Monday's meeting there will be further discussion of the request by the French wine industry to discharge the excess product of fermentation alcohol into the ethyl alcohol market? Fermentation alcohol is an agricultural product and therefore subsidised, and such procedure will distort the ethyl alcohol market. Ethyl alcohol is an industrial product and is not subsidised. Does the Minister accept that, if the French wine industry gets away with that trick, job prospects in the field of ethyl alcohol in this country will be adversely affected?

Mr. Walker: As far as I know, the ethyl alcohol regime is not on the agenda for next Monday's Council meeting.

When it is discussed, I shall bear the hon. Gentleman's point in mind.

Mr. Hicks: Will my right hon. Friend be submitting proposals to the Commissioner about the designation of marginal land in the United Kingdom under the provisions of the less favoured areas directive?

Mr. Walker: No, but I shall be making a statement shortly about the designation of marginal land.

Mr. Jay: As long as the French impose a levy on British lamb, why should we not impose a levy on French motor cars?

Mr. Walker: That is an attractive idea, but in a Community where eight countries and the Commission are condemning France for her illegal action, it is correct to endeavour to persuade the French Government to comply with the law. If the Community is run on the basis that one illegal act results in a whole range of illegal acts throughout the Community, it will spell the end of the Community—which I know that the right hon. Gentleman would welcome.

Milk and Dairy Products

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimated amount of financial aid which has been allocated by the European Economic Community for the provision of milk and dairy products to schoolchildren for the current year.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The letter of amendment to the 1980 draft EEC budget forecasts financial aid for the supply of milk to school children at 59.7 million European units of account (meua), 28.9 meua of which is to be financed from the co-responsibility levy on milk producers. However, as the hon. Member knows, the European Parliament has rejected the draft budget.

Mr. Wainwright: Does the Minister agree that the Government's policy appears to be not to give free milk to children, especially those aged 5 to 7 years, but, if they agreed to give that free milk, almost 50 per cent. of the retail cost would be paid for by the EEC? Does he further agree that it is crazy not to give milk to the children and allow them to gain nutritional value and increase their health?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The education authorities' obligation to provide school (No. 2) Bill simply relaxes the local milk. If local authorities decide to continue to provide milk to schools, it is possible for that subsidy to be claimed.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Why do so many local authorities, particularly Conservative-controlled local authorities such as Borders regional council, not take advantage of the assistance available from the Common Market? Their failure is to the detriment of children and milk producers?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I thought that the hon. Gentleman also believed in a certain amount of freedom for local authorities to come to their own conclusions, rather than dictation from the centre.

Beef

Mr. Parris: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the prospects for the beef producing sector of the United Kingdom agriculture industry.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Parris: Will the Minister bear in mind the serious problems that the beef industry is suffering through distortions in the common agricultural policy? It needs a long period of profitability, stability and certainty to restore confidence and rebuild herds.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I appreciate the problems that the beef industry has been facing, but we have carried through three devaluations of the green pound and just before Christmas we announced substantial increases in hill livestock compensatory amounts, which should indicate to beef producers in this country that we believe that there is a good future for beef production.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that the increase in costs for beef farmers over the past two years are way in excess of revenue, even taking account of the changes that he has referred to, and that those increases have eroded the benefits that they might have had from European schemes? Those schemes encouraged some farmers to move from milk to beef.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I appreciate that beef producers have had to face in-

creasing costs, along with other producers. That is why we have carried through measures that we believe will help them. We are concerned about the livestock sector generally and we shall continue to follow policies to support it.

Food Manufacturers' Federation

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if it is his intention to meet the president of the Food Manufacturers Federation.

Mr. Peter Walker: I shall be meeting the president of the Food Manufacturers Federation tomorrow and again on 6 February.

Mr. Winterton: When my right hon. Friend meets the president of the Food Manufacturers Federation, will be congratulate the Federation and all its companies on its excellent service and the good value for money that it gives to the British consumer? Is he aware that that vital industry could be inhibited in providing value for money and the necessary service to the housewife if secondary picketing is allowed to continue, bearing in mind that the industry is dependent on containers with a steel content?

Mr. Walker: I agree that the food manufacturing industry in this country has a good record and one that could help us penetrate overseas markets. I, too, regret any secondary picketing that is damaging food supplies in this country.

Mr. James A. Dunn: Will the right hon. Gentleman seek advice from the president of the Food Manufacturers Federation on the impact of the rise in energy costs announced yesterday on employment prospects for the industry and price levels for the housewife?

Mr. Walker: I shall discuss a whole range of matters when I meet the president. I believe that the gentleman concerned will be anxious about the general economic situation and a whole range of measures, and that he will not take one matter in isolation.

Mr. Shersby: When my right hon. Friend meets the president, is it his intention to discuss the viability of the starch regime? If not, will he tell the House what is his policy towards the regime?

Mr. Walker: It is not my intention to discuss that matter with the president. I discussed the matter with the starch manufacturers yesterday and we agreed upon the attitude that we shall take as far as Community negotiations are concerned.

Country Landowners Association

Mr. Cockeram: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if it is his intention to meet the president of the Country Landowners Association.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jerry Wiggin): My right hon. Friend hopes to meet the president of the Country Landowners Association on 5 February.

Mr. Cockeram: Do the Government share the general concern that, since the 1976 Act, there has been a tendency for agricultural tenancies to decrease and, consequently, for rents to rise to high levels? Will he discuss the problem with the president of the CLA with a view to securing a suggested remedy to it?

Mr. Wiggin: My right hon. Friend believes that it would be wrong for the Government to introduce changes in agricultural holdings legislation which are not acceptable to the industry as a whole. Without the industry's agreement, farms will not be let.

Mr. Strang: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the two pieces of legislation that were enacted by the previous Labour Government and which were most ferociously opposed by the CLA were those which gave greater security of tenure to the families of farm workers and tenant farmers? Will he make clear that the Government have no intention of undermining that security, both in relation to farm workers and tenant farmers?

Mr. Wiggin: The original question concerned the letting of farms. I suggest that the two pieces of legislation passed by the previous Government—capital transfer tax and the 1976 Act—have completely dried up the supply of land to let.

Mr. Peter Mills: Will my hon. Friend make clear to the president of the CLA that it is crucial to come to an agreement with the NFU over a wide range of matters, particularly with regard to the

farming ladder? If something can be done about that, it will provide opportunities for many young farmers.

Mr. Wiggin: It would not be right for me to lay the blame on either body as to why the talks broke off. However, it is well known that the NFU have more difficulty in coming to terms than the CLA.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister give the assurance that is asked for by the Front Bench spokesman for the Opposition, that the rights of tenant farmers will not be eroded and replaced by the auctioneering that went on before we passed our legislation? Before that time, ordinary, decent, hard-working tenant farmers were priced out of the market by greedy massive landowners.

Mr. Wiggin: I detect an almost universal wish in the industry that more farms should be available to let and that opportunities should exist for young people to farm. The Government will seek to consider ways in which those objectives can be carried out.

Laxton Village

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many representations he has had regarding his decision to sell Ministry-owned land at Laxton, Nottinghamshire.

Mr. Wiggin: Seventy-nine, as at 16 January.

Mr. Whitehead: Does the Minister agree that the unique value of Laxton is not contained in the acreage that might be flogged off for profit but in the methods that have been employed there? Does he agree that they are unique and should be preserved?

Mr. Wiggin: Certainly. Let me make clear that the Government have no intention of affecting the historical system of land tenure at Laxton in any way. I have given assurances to that effect Any buyer will be required to give assurances to the Government in the same vein.

Classified Land

Mr. Chapman: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the latest available annual figures of agricultural classified land lost to development in England and Wales and


the proportion of this which is grade I and grade II.

Mr. Wiggin: About 30,000 hectares of land in England and Wales go out of agricultural use each year. I regret that we do not keep statistics of land losses by grades of land.

Mr. Chapman: I should have preferred that answer in Imperial terms, but does my hon. Friend agree that that is far too much land? Does he agree with the simple proposition that it is wrong on economic as well as environmental grounds for one acre—metrically adjusted—to be developed while there are hundreds and thousands of derelict acres lying unused in city centres?

Mr. Wiggin: I agree with my hon. Friend that 75,000 acres is far too many lost to agricultural use. He is right to say that every acre of land that has been previously developed and can now be built on again is an acre of agricultural land saved. I am working in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to seek to achieve that end.

Mr. Myles: When considering the loss of agricultural land, will my hon. Friend consider encouraging the regeneration of hill pastures, possibly by encouraging the use of lime?

Mr. Wiggin: My right hon. Friend seeks to encourage the increase in production of all agricultural land in the country.

Green Pound

Mr. Goodlad: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current differential between the value of the green pound and the market rate of the pound sterling.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: For most products, the current difference between the rate for the green pound and the market rate of sterling used for MCA purposes is 5 per cent. giving an applied MCA percentage of 3·5 per cent.

Mr. Goodlad: I acknowledge that parity has been almost achieved, given the low margins being achieved in the industry, but will the Minister say how he believes the British farmer will get a return from the market in future?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: If my hon. Friend looks at the effects in relation to beef following the devaluations, he will see that we have been able to announce today an increase in the revised target prices. They are 19 per cent. higher than those that existed at the end of March last year. That indicates the effect that has already been achieved by the MCAs and the benefits to producers in the country.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Ql. Mr. Whitehead: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 17 January.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

Mr. Whitehead: As we understand that the Cabinet may have discussed the possible British boycott of the Olympic Games this morning, on the proper ground that sport and politics are mixed, will the Prime Minister also call for a report from the Minister with responsibility for sport on the proposed rugby tour of South Africa which may lead to our expulsion from the Commonwealth Games? Will the right hon. Lady tell the House whether she supports her Minister or whether she agrees with the views of Mr. Dennis Thatcher?

The Prime Minister: I shall try to answer the hon. Gentleman's three questions. With regard to the Olympic Games, Ministers have discussed the matter. We favour trying to move the venue from Moscow to elsewhere, if it is possible to do so. That cannot be done alone, and we believe that we should try to do it by taking concerted action with our allies in making an approach to the International Olympic Committee, in whose lap the decision lies. With regard to the Lions' tour of South Africa, the Minister with responsibility for sport has expressed my view that the tour is contrary to the Gleneagles agreement. With regard to opinion in the Thatcher household, the Prime Minister does not have a monopoly.

Mr. Edward Gardner: In view of the judgment of the Lord Chief Justice this week that a published interview with a juror was not contempt of court, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that she will take urgent steps to have that part of the law changed? Does she agree that disclosures of that sort undermine public confidence in the jury system and may put in jeopardy the jury system itself?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. and learned Friend recognises, that was, indeed, a significant judgment. Of course, the Government will have to consider what to do about it. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for raising the matter.

Mr. William Hamilton: In the event of the failure of the Government to transfer the venue of the Olympic Games from Moscow, will the right hon. Lady undertake to refuse permission to the Duke of Edinburgh to visit Moscow?

The Prime Minister: I am not prepared to give undertakings at the moment. I have indicated to the House the view that we take about the matter. If we are unable to succeed in that view, other matters will arise. Decisions will have to be taken at the time.

Mr. Higgins: Since my right hon. Friend and I are equally determined that effective action should be taken to deter Russian aggression, will she ensure that full consultation takes place before the Government take a definite line on the boycott of the Olympic Games? If such an appeal was rejected by the sporting bodies concerned, the effect would be highly damaging and counter-productive. As far as changing the venue is concerned, leaving on one side the practical difficulties and the fact that the Government will, no doubt, be expected to meet the cost, will she take into account the fact that the whole point of the Olympic Games, from the individual's point of view, is that he expects to match himself against the best in the world? An Olympic Games in which large numbers of good competitors do not take part will be seen as pointless by many. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that might well arise if the countries of the Third world, which object to the Lions' tour of South Africa, felt that they

should go to Moscow rather than elsewhere?

The Prime Minister: Obviously I am very much aware of the viewpoint of those who have been training for a number of years so that they reach peak performance at the time of the Olympics. We must take account of that. That is why we believe that it is right to move the venue away from Moscow. Equally, we cannot just stand back and watch what the Russians are doing in Afghanistan, deplore it and take no action at all.

Mr. Straw: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 17 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given.

Mr. Straw: With rocketing price inflation and earnings rising by 19·2 per cent. a year, does the Prime Minister still maintain that there are no circumstances in which she would introduce a wages freeze?

The Prime Minister: I expected that catch question. Labour Members have been trying to trap me for a long time. One of the problems we face is that of trying to get away from years of incomes policies, because, as a result, people have come to expect an annual increase for nothing. That is one of the troubles bedevilling this country.

Mr. Lawrence: In view of the alarming international situation and the abiding hostility of some groups in the Labour Party to Britain's role in the defence of the West, will the Prime Minister voice her concern about the work of Trotskyist revolutionaries within the Labour Party, which has just been revealed once again?

The Prime Minister: I voice my concern at the activities of these revolutionaries wherever they work, and particularly in the Labour Party. The only way in which we can ensure that they do not triumph is by making certain that we are returned at the next election.

Mr. Radice: Does the Prime Minister ever wake up during the night and reflect that her economic and industrial policies might be wrong?

The Prime Minister: I very rarely wake up—[Laughter.]—during the night. If one is to have a clear mind, it is better to sleep well and briefly at night and be wide awake in the day.

Mr. Bob Dunn: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier.

Mr. Dunn: Will the Prime Minister take time to examine early-day motion No. 312 in my name and the names of my hon. Friends? Will she not condemn the pledge given by the Labour Party to withdraw the right of council tenants to buy their homes if they so desire? Does she not agree that that pledge is consistent with the decisions of the Labour Party to keep council tenants as second-class citizens in tied cottages?

The Prime Minister: I condemn that pledge which was given from the Opposition Front Bench earlier this week. I believe that it is an attempt to deprive future generations of an opportunity that their parents would have wished them to have, and that we propose to give them. I hope that the Labour Party will never have the opportunity to introduce that pledge.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: As the Prime Minister has given strong public support to President Carter to apply sanctions and put pressure on Iran to release the American hostages there, is it not totally inappropriate that this country should be training Iranian military personnel? How many such personnel are in this country? Will the Prime Minister give an assurance today that they will all be gone tomorrow?

The Prime Minister: There are very few people from Iran undergoing some kind of training in this country—the figure is fewer than 30. There are some training under similar contracts in the United States.

Mr. Philip Holland: Will the Prime Minister find time today to find out from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what he has done with the coypu strategy group which has been totally omitted from the otherwise immensely interesting and reassuring White Paper published yesterday?

The Prime Minister: I shall pass that staggering piece of news on to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Flannery: Will the Prime Minister take time off from her many commitments today to direct her attention to the escalating steel strike? Does she not realise that there is great danger of this strike becoming a general strike in time, and that nobody any longer believes in a policy of non-intervention? Does she not realise that, according to a letter in The Times this morning, certain Tories are arguing that the fundamental line of the Government is now totally wrong? What does she intend to do about it?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Member is asking me to intervene and mediate in the steel dispute, I cannot do so. There is a very good mediation and conciliation process in ACAS which is already operating. If the hon. Member is asking me to give a bigger public subsidy of taxpayers' money to those who are already earning above average wages, that would be wrong also.

Mr. Emery: Will the Prime Minister discuss with the Home Secretary today the measures that could be taken to combat the spread of flying picketing, which is resulting in violence and arrests on the picket line? Is she aware that the vast majority of the British people are very much against the denial of the right to work brought about by the intimidation on the picket line and by secondary picketing? Will she consider bringing forward that part of the Employment Bill, dealing with secondary picketing, which allows industrialists to take action, in order that it may be on the statute book within the next few weeks?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend receives reports from the area police authorities about what is happening on the picket lines. I believe that the police are carrying out their duties to the best of their ability in order to see that people are able to go about their lawful business unhindered. I must be candid about the provisions in the Employment Bill on secondary picketing. I do not think it is possible to get that Bill through in time to deal with the present strike. We must attempt to deal with the problems that arise on the picket lines under the powers of the present common law.

Mr. Dubs: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her public engagements for 17 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier.

Mr. Dubs: Will the Prime Minister find time today to consider the fact that during the last election campaign the Conservative Party made great play of being in favour of the family? Therefore, will she tell us how she can justify the decision not to increase child benefits at a time of rapidly increasing inflation?

The Prime Minister: This party is very much in favour of the family, but that does not mean arguing for every single benefit to be increased. Families must provide the benefits from which family benefits are increased. Labour Members are always prepared to ask other people to do something without recognising that demands made on the Government are demands that we make on ourselves.

Mr. Gummer: Will my right hon. Friend reflect that it is a fact that those in the steel industry who are on strike are not prepared to earn their extra money and the steel management has not got the money to pay the extra amount? Therefore, where do the Opposition think the money will come from to pay the steel men more?

The Prime Minister: I cannot answer for the Opposition, but one of the problems we face is the fact that wealth must be created before it can be distributed. The extra money demanded for the steel industry comes out of the same pool as that needed for hospitals, education, family benefits, and so on.

Mr. James Callaghan: We shall be debating the steel industry later this afternoon. I hope that an attack will be made on the foolishness of the Government in fixing a level of steel capacity that is far too low. I should like to revert to the original question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs). The figure for earnings, published yesterday, was 19·2 per cent. The figure of pensions increase was fixed on a basis of earnings of 17·5 per cent. The right hon. Lady, when she was seeking votes last April, decided to underwrite our commitment to increase this figure. Is she now intending to increase the amount of

pensions in view of the fact that earnings are much higher?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that pensions went up by more than 17½per cent. this year—more than 17½per cent.

Mr. Callaghan: I understand that the right hon. Lady may not have fully understood the question. I shall put it again. The pension increase this year was based on the 17·5 per cent. increase in earnings together—

The Prime Minister: I understand that.

Mr. Callaghan: If the right hon. Lady understood, it was a damned bad answer. I do not assume that she was trying to deceive the House. Assuming that she was not trying to deceive the House, we should try to get the facts right. The pension increase of 19·5 per cent. this year was made up of 17½per cent. based on earnings and the 2 per cent. that she pledged to give before the election to make up for the shortfall. Now that the figures have been published, it is seen that the estimate was too low. I repeat my question. Now that the right hon. Lady has won the election and does not need the votes, does she propose to renege on the undertaking she gave before the election?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's confirmation that pensions did go up by some 19 per cent. this year. Most hon. Members on the Government side of the House remember very well the time the Opposition were in power when they left out three or four months' rapid increase in the cost of living from their calculations.

Mr. Callaghan: It is clear that the right hon. Lady has no answer to the question. Will she therefore give an assurance, in view of this increase and in view of the concern that the Secretary of State for Social Services has expressed about the link between prices and short-term benefits, that there will be no decoupling between price levels and the fixing of short-term benefits on unemployment, invalidity and sickness benefits to worsen even further the position of those who are worst off and who will be badly hit by the increases in electricity and gas prices and other charges?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows that we have to operate the law as it is unless and until the law is changed. One of the main factors in keeping down general prices is to try to keep down the increase in wages. We shall be glad to have the right hon. Gentleman's help in the steel industry towards that aim.

CHILE

Mr. Winnick: Mr. Winnick (by private notice) asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the restoration of normal diplomatic relations with Chile.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): Over recent months we have been considering all aspects of our relations with Chile. We have now decided that we should restore our relations with Chile to the normal diplomatic level, in line with those of most of our major allies. As I stated in my reply of 16 January to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) we are, therefore, after discussion with the Chilean Government, reinstating ambassadors.

Mr. Winnick: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the decision that he has announced shows the total indifference of the Conservative Government and, certainly, those on the Conservative Benches to the denial of human rights under a Right-wing military dictatorship? Is it not the case that the torturers of Dr. Sheila Cassidy have never been brought to justice in Chile and that in Chile itself there continue to be tortures and killings? Why do the Conservative Government always find reasons for the justification of Right-wing military dictators?

Mr. Ridley: If we were to base the exchange of ambassadors upon countries with regimes or with records on human rights of which we approved, we would have many fewer ambassadors. It is not this Government's policy to be selective in this matter, as the previous Government were.

Mr. Kershaw: Are we proposing to keep our ambassador in Moscow in this regard?

Mr. Ridley: I know of no proposal to withdraw our ambassador from Moscow. As we have made clear in the United Nations General Assembly, we do not base our condemnation on human rights grounds on selective considerations, as the Opposition do.

Mr. Shore: Has the Minister considered all the circumstances? What does he have to say about the last report of the Human Rights Commission of the General


Assembly of the United Nations, which became available only a few weeks ago? This indicated clearly that the human rights situation in Chile had deteriorated rather than improved in the past 12 months. Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the United States, for reasons connected with the behaviour of the Chilean regime, reduced the level of its representation in Santiago only last month? How can the Minister justify this change of policy? Against what background of changed conditions is he intending to justify his decision?

Mr. Ridley: We have ambassadors in many countries, such as Vietnam, where there are far worse records on human rights. Far be it for me to try to arrange a league table of which countries are better or worse. The right hon. Gentleman may not be aware that at the time of the United Nations General Assembly resolution to which he referred the Nine made a joint explanation of vote, stressing the need to avoid selectivity.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Is my hon. Friend aware that many Conservative Members feel that the time is long overdue when we should join the United States, France and Germany in recognising this regime and having an ambassador there? Is he aware that such an ambassador will not only give Britain's approval but also disapproval from time to time? The ambassador will also be able to look after the interests of British citizens living in that country.

Mr. Ridley: One of the reasons for deciding to restore ambassadors is to enable us to present our views on human rights and all other matters at a higher level and, therefore, with greater impact.

Mr. James Callaghan: I remind the Minister that when the ambassador was withdrawn it was done with the general consent of both sides of the House, because of the torture of Dr. Sheila Cassidy. Has any apology been received from the Chilean Government in respect of that matter? Or what other considerations have now led him to reverse that decision?

Mr. Ridley: As a result of much pressure upon the Chilean Government we have obtained from them a letter set-

ting out their serious concern about Dr. Cassidy's case. They assure us that they have carried out the most exhaustive possible investigation and sincerely regret any improper treatment that Dr. Cassidy may have received during her detention. That letter is dated December 1979. It is much further than the previous Government managed to get the Chilean Government to go.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Since the United Kingdom—unlike many other countries, which continued to recognise Chile—has lost a good deal of trade over the past two years, will my hon. Friend confirm that ECGD credits will be available once again to exporters to that country? Will he confirm that Mr. Heath, the former consul-general in Chicago, is to be appointed as ambassador? At a time when the Soviet Union is stamping out human rights in Pakistan, does my hon. Friend not think that it is the height of hypocrisy for Opposition Members to complain about our exchanging ambassadors with Chile?

Mr. Ridley: Medium-term credits were restored by the ECGD in June 1979. We have lost considerably on trade with Chile as a result of our attitude. That is not the reason that caused us to change our mind about the Labour Government's policy. I endorse entirely the comment of my hon. Friend that the action of Governments in relation to human rights should not determine whether we have diplomatic relations with them at the highest level.
We have sought an agrément for an ambassador with the Chilean Government. However, it is not the usual courtesy to suggest his name until an agrément has been reached.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Is the Minister aware that it is recognised that we have representation in countries that we do not like for good, sound reasons that he has mentioned? Nevertheless, does he recall that the withdrawal of our ambassador was connected not only with Sheila Cassidy and her torture but with the case of William Beausire, a British citizen, who has, as far as we know, been tortured and certainly imprisoned, for the past six years? What assurances did we receive from the Chilean Government before we agreed to resume our representation?

Mr. Ridley: The Chilean Government have told us that they are still making investigations into Mr. Beausire's case. The Chilean Government have given us an assurance that the authorities will give legal tribunals which are investigating the matter maximum co-operation. It is fair to state that nobody knows where Mr. Beau-sire is or what has happened to him.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call one hon. Member from each side of the Chamber. This is an extension of Question Time.

Mr. Dobson: Does the Minister accept that his decision to allow the torture of a British citizen to go unpunished means that he should in all conscience call in all existing British passports and cause to be struck from them, as a dead letter, those parts that require foreign Governments and citizens to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary? It is clear that the Government are no longer willing to assert the rights of British citizens.

Mr. Ridley: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is wrong to seek to imply that the Government had anything to do with those events, or was in any way able to protect Dr. Cassidy. The Opposition know that the Government's action is in no sense a condemnation of the Chilean Government, any more than it is a mark of approval of them.

Mr. Churchill: Several thousand jobs were lost in Britain, more especially on Clydeside and Tyneside, as a result of the arms embargo imposed by the Labour Government. What plans do Her Majesty's Government have for resuming arms sales to Chile?

Mr. Ridley: Her Majesty's Government have no plans to resume arms sales to Chile at present.

RATE SUPPORT GRANT (DEBATE)

Mr. Guy Barnett: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to raise a point of order about the accuracy of yesterday's Hansard. I wish to refer to a speech made by the Secretary of State for the Environment when he was introducing the rate support grant debate. I wish to make it clear that I make no imputation against his officials, or against the Hansard reporters, for whom I have the highest respect. However, it is in my recollection, and in that of certainly one of my hon. Friends, that in column 1685, eight lines from the bottom in a sentence that begins
We will judge that position"—
the right hon. Gentleman was referring to actions that he might take in relation to local authorities—
in the light of the expenditure, intentions and decisions of individual local authorities."—[Official Report, 16 January 1980; Vol. 976, c. 1685.]
It is in my recollection that the right hon. Gentleman used the word "speeches" in that sentence. That caused a certain amount of concern, certainly on the Opposition Benches. For the sake of local authorities, if not for anyone else, it is important for the matter to be cleared up. I shall be grateful if it is investigated.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I, through you, Mr. Speaker, thank the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) for his courtesy in informing me a few minutes ago that he intended to raise the point of order? In the brief time available I have checked the record as best as I am able. My memory is, broadly, that the hon. Gentleman is correct.
Last night I had no contact with Hansard. In the ordinary course of normal affairs my private secretary visited Hansard later last evening, to find that my speech had already been sent to the printers. It being a formal speech, to which I stuck in the course of delivery, it was easy for the speech to be sent to the printers rapidly. Therefore, my private secretary was unable to check what had been sent to the printers. As a consequence, my secretary accepted the official record of the Hansard reporters.
Following notification by the hon. Gentleman, we have read the official


record. The part of my speech that the hon. Gentleman quoted was uttered in reply to a question from Labour Members. Therefore, it did not come from the official text from which I was delivering the speech. My memory is that I said "expenditure decisions and speeches." If it is acceptable to the House, I can instruct Hansard, the Official Report—[Interruption.] Of course, Mr. Speaker, I must be guided by you. However, for my part I am anxious that the record should be as my memory and, I believe, that of the hon. Gentleman, indicates.

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged. I know that the House will be obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I will have a word with the Hansard authorities.

CORRIGENDUM

In the remarks of Mr. Heseltine at the foot of col. 1685, the following should be inserted at the end of the first sentence—i.e., between "set." and "We":

"I must tell the Opposition that they would have no difficulty because it will be clear from the restricted number of authorities affected and from the speeches and decisions that they have made that—[Interruption.]—Perhaps I can help Opposition Members. Perhaps I can clarify matters."

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. James Callaghan: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): Yes, Sir. The Business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 21 JANUARY—Supply [9th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on the problems of the Northern Region, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Remaining stages of the Bees Bill.

Motion on the Value Added Tax (Fuel and Power) (Metrication) Order.

The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.

TUESDAY 22 JANUARY—Remaining stages of the Competition Bill.

Motion on European Community documents R/2075/78 and 4679/79 on the European Court of Justice.

WEDNESDAY 23 JANUARY—Debate the report of the Merrison committee on the National Health Service, Cmnd. 7615.

Motion on the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Multilateral Trade Negotiations) Order.

THURSDAY 24 JANUARY—Debate Oil the role of nuclear weapons in Britain's defence policy, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

FRIDAY 25 JANUARY—Private Members' motions.

MONDAY 28 JANUARY—Debate On East-West relations and the crisis in South-West Asia, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. Callaghan: We hope that the foreign affairs debate will be more directly related to East-West relations and the consequences of recent events, leaving for separate discussion at a later date the future of Zimbabwe and events in that area, along with other related matters. We think that the Middle East will also come into the debate to take place on Monday week. In preparation for that debate, I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether we


may have a statement on Lord Carrington's visit as soon as he returns, so that the House may consider it before the debate arises.
Secondly, I gather that the right hon. Gentleman is anxious to confide to us the date of the Budget.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful for the declaration of intent on the part of the Leader of the Opposition about the scope of the debate, which fits in well with the title that the Government have suggested, namely, a debate on foreign affairs. My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will be making a statement on his return from his important round of visits.

Mr. Callaghan: And here?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: And here. Of course, that goes without saying, I hope. Whenever there is a major statement on foreign affairs in another place an identical statement is made in this place.
With regard to the date of the Budget, I am pleased to share my knowledge with the right hon. Gentleman and the House. The date proposed by my right hon. and learned Friend to open his Budget is Tuesday 25 March.

Mr. Callaghan: We shall certainly look forward to that date with considerable apprehension. Tuesday's debate on the Competition Bill may, in some ways, be a foretaste of what is to come. Subject to the rules of order, Mr. Speaker, I take it that it will be possible for us to mention some of the alarming price increases resulting from direct Government intervention, such as gas, electricity, postal charges, rail fares and all the others that will come. Some of the price increases are the result of direct Government intervention, and I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will be able to question Ministers on what the Competition Bill will do to assist the poor, miserable consumer to improve his standard of life under this Government.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I imagine that what is in order is a matter for Mr. Speaker. My opinion, for what it is worth, is that references to price rises would be in order, as would references to the legacy from the previous Government, from which many of those increases arise.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call any hon. Member to ask a question, I inform the House that more hon. Members have indicated a wish to speak in the major debate than can possibly be called. The more time that is taken now, the fewer hon. Members will be called in the debate on the steel industry that is to follow. Therefore, I hope that hon. Members will understand that I propose to spend less time than usual on business questions.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Does my right hon. Friend recall that before the Christmas Recess my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry undertook to have words with him about an early debate on the award of many hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money to British Leyland? I wonder whether my right hon. Friend can assure us that we shall have an early opportunity to discuss and put questions on this matter, as he and I, and you, too, Mr. Speaker, are answerable to our constituents for the disbursement of their tax revenue. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that Wednesday's business does not appear to be of such overriding urgency that it could not be displaced for a discussion of this kind.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The relative importance of items of business depends on the interests of hon. Members, or at least their subjective judgment. I have had words with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and we have discussed the whole question of the corporate plan for British Leyland and whether there should be a debate. I assure my hon. Friend that it is the Government's intention to have a debate on the annual corporate plan in due course, but I cannot give him the particular undertaking for which he asks.

Mr. Beith: May we have an assurance that next week's business will be reported in Hansard in the usual way, with proceedings up to 10 o'clock being recorded in the following morning's edition? Why has that not been done this week? Has the Leader of the House had any hand in arranging for the Budget to coincide with the enthronement of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: As the hon. Member will know, there are continual employment and technical difficulties over


the printing of Hansard, and I am doing all that I can to see that they are overcome. As for the coincidence of the date of the Budget and the date of the enthronement of the Archbishop of Canterbury, I am caused considerable distress by the dilemma over which of the functions I should fulfil. I would indeed be delighted to be present at the enthronement of the archbishop, but it is not yet possible to be in two places at the same time. Bilocation is a sign of sanctity. If I could do that, I should be able to serve God and Mammon at the same time.

Mr. Maxton: Is the Leader of the House aware that there is considerable anger among Scottish Members about the debate that took place last night on the Scottish rate support grant? Is he aware that in that debate of one and a half hours the Front Bench speakers took one hour and 10 minutes? We are criticising not the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen or the Government Front Bench spokesmen, but the time given for such an important issue. Can he assure us that in future we shall have a full half-day debate on the subject?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I appreciate the desire of Scottish Members to make their views fully known and I shall look into the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Cormack: In view of the happy coincidence referred to by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), will my right hon. Friend ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure that churches are exempted from VAT?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I think that that would be an amende honorable.

Mr. Whitehead: Will the Chancellor of the Duchy tell us why the House has not yet debated the broadcasting Bill, which we were led to believe would come before the House before the end of January? Is it because, as reported in the Press, the Cabinet is split on the matter? Does the Chancellor of the Duchy realise the inconvenience that has been caused? The plans of Independent Television have been held up because of the nonappearance of the Bill.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is not because the Cabinet is split on the issue but because the final consideration of the Bill has not yet taken place.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My right hon. Friend announced that there would be a debate on Monday on East-West relations and other foreign affairs matters. Will he consider making it at least a two-day debate, bearing in mind that the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan is probably the gravest threat to the peace of the world since the outbreak of the last war? Many hon. Members who do not normally participate in foreign affairs debates would like to make a contribution on this vital issue. I speak as one who visited the Soviet embassy this morning and saw the Soviet ambassador.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I believe that there is agreement throughout the House that we face an extremely grave international crisis. However, we shall have a debate on defence policy on Thursday, as well as the foreign affairs debate on Monday, and I think that that is a reasonable allocation of time, though there will, of course, also be time next week to discuss any statement that may be made on foreign affairs.

Mr. Stuart Holland: Will the Leader of the House give time next week for the House to debate the proposal by European Ferries Limited to construct, within sight of the Terrace of the House, an office block which would be nearly as high as the National Westminster Bank tower but much wider, and which would dominate the view on that part of the Thames? Will he also invite the Secretary of State for the Environment to give instructions that the public inquiry into the proposal should be adjourned until the House has had time to consider the matter and form a view?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have considerable sympathy with the point made by the hon. Gentleman. I am concerned about any effect that the proposed plans may have on the amenities of the House, amongst other places. An inquiry is being conducted at present and it is at that inquiry that evidence should be given. It is open to the hon. Gentleman to raise the matter on the Adjournment, and to give evidence to the inquiry. From what I have gathered from the response of the House, anything that the hon. Gentleman said would receive support.

Mr. Foot: Scrap it altogether.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The right hon. Gentleman says "Scrap it altogether". I am sure that that will be noted by the inquiry.

Several Hon Members: Several Hon Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call two more hon. Members from each side.

Mr. Kershaw: Has the Chancellor of the Duchy been able to make any progress about financing the new Select Committees?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The job of fianancing Select Committees is a matter for the House of Commons Commission.

Mr. Rooker: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Social Services to make a statement next week explaining why the Government are short-changing the pensioners and also admitting that it is no excuse to say that because the Government made good the shortfall in the 1978 uprating they should not make good the shortfall in the 1979 uprating?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall certainly pass on that observation to my right hon. Friend, but, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear earlier, when the Government took office we brought about a record rise in pensions.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Since the Front Bench spokesmen will need time in the foreign affairs debate to set out fully the complex matters involved, will my right hon. Friend discuss with the usual channels the possibility of not having a vote

at the end of the debate, but allowing it to continue until 11 pm so that more hon. Members may take part?
Why have the Government chosen to have the defence debate on a motion for the Adjournment of the House? Is it not possible for the Government to table a motion in favour of the deployment of cruise missiles in this country, so that those of us who favour that deployment can say so plainly in a vote?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is not unusual to have a debate on such a matter on a motion for the Adjournment. It will be open to my hon. Friend to table a motion, which may be selected for debate. A vote on the Adjournment is well understood to be a vote for or against the principal issues in the debate. My hon. Friend has made a reasonable suggestion about the extension of the foreign affairs debate, and I believe that it should be discussed.

Mr. McElhone: Will the Leader of the House consider extending the debate on foreign affairs so that we may discuss resolution No. 455 of the United Nations Security Council, which calls upon this country, as the responsible colonial Power, to make reparation to Zambia for the blowing up of 10 bridges? Although the Government have rejected legal responsibility, we have a moral responsibility for the serious food shortage in Zambia, which has been caused by the sabotage of those bridges by Rhodesian forces.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall certainly see that that important point is passed on to the Governor in Rhodesia.

STEEL INDUSTRY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jopling.]

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State for Industry, may I inform the House, as I did earlier, that far more hon. Members have indicated a wish to speak than I am likely to be able to call? I hope that hon. Members will not come to the Chair, because that will not help. If speeches are short, far more hon. Members will be called, but that is dependent on the House's response.

The Secretary of State for Industry (Sir Keith Joseph): I want to start by trying to set the steel dispute in a wider context. We in this country are in relative economic decline. Only a generation ago, our wage earners, salary earners and pensioners had a higher standard of living than those in practically every other country. Now the wage earners, salary earners and pensioners in many other countries have higher standards of living than do ours.
That is not because of any lack of talent in this country. Nor is it because all our economy is uncompetitive. Many of our manufacturing firms, large and small, are world-leaders. The City and our commerce, distribution, invisibles and agriculture are all, in general, excellent. But the good performance of many is offset by the bad performance of some, and our average is less good than that of our rivals. That is why we are in relative economic decline.
Governments must take much of the blame. We have relatively low pay, relatively low pensions and many relatively inadequate public services because too many people have been allowed—perhaps even encouraged—by Governments to ignore the economic reality that jobs and earnings—and the public spending made possible by them—depend upon customers and upon being competitive.
Nationalisation has actually helped to breed indifference to the customer and to competitiveness. Management has been, and is, patchy, ranging from the brilliant to the poor, and unions have often not understood the link between competitiveness and satisfied customers on the one hand and pay and jobs on the other.
Unions, in order to obtain higher pay, tend to threaten private employers with bankruptcy and public employers, nationalised or State, with disruption and damage to the public, and they tend to threaten employers, regardless of the demand for the product or service, regardless of the demand for their labour and skills, regardless of the profit or loss of the employer, regardless of the scope for increased productivity and regardless of the freedom of union members to move in search of higher pay if they can get it elsewhere. The word "regardless" is near the heart of the British disease.
Unions often force private employers to choose between the immediate disaster of a long strike if they resist or the deferred disaster of crippled competitiveness and squeezed profit if they give way. What British unions in general tend to demand, and extract, from employers is all too often something for nothing—increased earnings regardless—a demand for higher pay without a readiness to co-operate in financing that higher pay by higher productivity. The result of such pay increases is higher unit costs and so higher prices, tiny real profits, blunted competitiveness and therefore fewer jobs and lower pay and pensions than would otherwise be possible.
Employers, including the Government when they are involved, have tended to give way under the pressure of strikes or strike threats. Moreover, the public have come to see giving way as the decent and normal thing to do. The Government are called upon to "settle it"—meaning to give way—often with the taxpayers' money.
The results have been lamentable for the people of this country. We have, largely because of a widespread "something for nothing" attitude, lost competitiveness, lost jobs and lost the better pay, better pensions and better public services that we could have had and that most of our neighbours have. We have all too often bought peace at the cost of jobs, pay and pensions.
The steel dispute is a classic example of several aspects of the British disease. The background is nationalisation and centralised decision-making. The BSC management, successive Governments and the steel unions united in over-optimism. What is now seen to have been a too-ambitious expansion plan was launched


Almost immediately, demand turned round and began to fall.
The previous Government postponed the necessary closures, though they allowed some, so that what could have been earlier, but fewer, redundancies, at a time when there were more other jobs available, has built up to a larger number of redundancies at a time when there are fewer other jobs available.
I understand and sympathise with the steel workers. I have made it known to Mr. Sirs that I am willing to see him if he asks to see me—though not as part of the negotiations; that is for the BSC and the unions. The steel workers have seen an optimistic steel management, and they now see what may seem a pessimistic one. One of the disadvantages of nationalisation is that a single, central management judgment tends to be made, whether it be optimistic or pessimistic.
The truth is that home demand has fallen. The British economy has been pretty stagnant. British cars and mechanical engineering, both big steel users, have declined. Our steel prices have been, and are, high, our steel quality is not universally good, and there are many competitors, old and new, to fight for our markets at home and abroad.
So there is no escape. Demand has fallen, but the BSC proposes to keep a substantial reserve of spare capacity to meet increased demand when it comes.
I repeat that I sympathise with the steel workers, but it really is not sensible for them to insist upon higher pay regardless of whether productivity is improved.

Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. Friend talks of his sympathy for the steel workers. I should like to draw his attention to a card that I received today from the family of a steelworker—and I should think that many of my hon. Friends have received similar messages—thanking me for bringing up the subject of whether the steel men are afraid to go to work across the picket lines. The card reads:
Yes, they are afraid of crossing the picket lines—if they do they have been threatened that their union cards will be taken away. Sheer Blackmail, I say, by the Communists who are, I'm sorry to say, getting a strong hold in Corby. It's frightening when you see your husband afraid to go to work—one panics about the future…For God's sake do something.

I wonder whether my right hon. Friend can give hope to my correspondent and to tens of thousands of other people in the country that the Government will overcome this tyranny.

Sir K. Joseph: The Government have put before the House proposals to change trade union law, and we shall have to see whether any further changes have to be considered. [Hon. Members: "More threats."]

Mr. John Morris: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of demand, will he recognise that it was not only in this country that there was this mistake and the overestimate regarding demand but that it occurred in countries; which have privately owned industry and publicly owned industry, and that it was endorsed by the Government of which he was a member?

Sir K. Joseph: I would not dream of denying either proposition; they are undeniable.
I was saying that the steel workers were really not being sensible in insisting upon higher pay regardless of whether productivity was improved, because their employer is bankrupt. The British Steel Corporation and the unions are the negotiators but, as I understand it, BSC's original offer was not 2 per cent., as widely quoted, but 2 per cent. to honour a commitment made the previous year and up to a further 10 per cent. from the negotiation and implementation of improved productivity at local level.

Mr. Bill Homewood: The right hon. Gentleman really should get rid of this myth that in fact there was on offer of 10 per cent. The BSC is well aware that there was no possibility of 10 per cent. under the offer it was making, and it was made on the basis of a 1 per cent. decrease in manpower for a 1 per cent. increase in wages. Let us get the position straight.

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman is really not contradicting what I am saying. There is a large increase based on productivity to be obtained. The BSC certainly offered it and is offering it.
The average steel worker is paid about£110 per week gross. The offer now is of 8 per cent. in return for a central


agreement to facilitate improved productivity, plus 4 per cent. from local lump sum bonus schemes. The BSC is so confident that these schemes will yield at least 4 per cent. that it guarantees this as a minimum payment one the schemes are agreed. Also, it offered an advance payment of 4 per cent. during the current quarter to encourage people to negotiate the schemes by 31 March 1980. The lump sum would be worth more than£50 in each quarter for the average steel worker, and increases from productivity schemes of the traditional kind would still be available on top of all this. In other words, the BSC offers the chance to earn a pay rise of at least 12 per cent.
I ask the House and the steel workers to look at the prospects. They could be good. Look at the equipment: it is now as modern as any in the world. Look at the high levels of output achieved on the Continent and at the high levels of pay they finance.
The offer will enable average steel earnings to rise to£124 gross per week.

Mr. Russell Kerr: With overtime.

Sir K. Joseph: Yes, including overtime. But the unions will not at the moment sign the agreement on which the 8 per cent. offer is conditional and they will not agree to the conditions for the 4 per cent. payment. They want the 8 per cent. without strings and 5 per cent. as an advance payment against local bonus schemes. They accept the principle of those schemes, but they provide no assurances at all.
So it is not just a matter of 12 per cent. against 13 per cent.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the most difficult time to negotiate a productivity agreement is when markets are collapsing and falling, and that the only way to overcome this at this time is to restrict imports of steel, which will make possible a bigger market and therefore give flexibility to negotiate on greater productivity and a largerwage increase?

Sir K. Joseph: I should like to go one stage further in my speech before I answer the hon. Gentleman's proposition. I ask him to wait until I get to that stage in my argument.
The BSC's offer envisages that the extra money would be earned by the steel workers. This is important on two counts. First, it really is not reasonable to ask taxpayers—and all workers, including the low paid, and all pensioners are taxpayers, and the steel workers are taxpayers—to continue to pay a large subsidy to steel workers when the steel workers have the chance to earn more for themselves. Taxpayers, many of whom are paid much less than steel workers, are this financial year providing£1,800 for each steel worker towards his average earnings of£5,500. Taxpayers will have paid by the end of this financial year about£4,000 million for steel, and are being asked to pay a further£450 million in the next financial year. There can be no doubt that taxpayers have played, and are playing, their part.
The second reason—and I come to the proposition that has just been put to me by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley)—why a further subsidy from the taxpayer, whether it is a direct one or by way of bearing the continuing losses that would follow from the hon. Gentleman's proposition of import controls without immediate improvements in productivity, is not sensible or even good for the steel workers themselves is this. Steel is an internationally competitive industry. Customers have a very wide choice. They will not necessarily buy British. There are examples of really competitive manning levels in the BSC—for example, the Thrybergh Bar Mill—but there are too few of them. In general, the BSC is overmanned and uncompetitive.
Yet steel unions—and apparently the Labour Party want once again to defer the time when the steel industry becomes competitive. This may be intended to be kind to steel workers, but it is not. Every year that they defer becoming competitive their rivals move ahead. Their competitors, their rivals, are increasing their productivity faster than British steel workers are. Their competitors are accelerating ahead. Every year that the British steel industry does not catch up leaves us not the same distance but fur-their behind; and the result of being left further behind is that the industry will have to shrink even further, there will be fewer jobs, and better pay will be further


out of reach. Each delay will destroy more steel plants and more steel jobs.

Mr. Barry Jones: I follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument, but has he taken into account the social consequences of his policy? May I ask him to take into account the Shotton situation? It may have come to his attention this week that an additional 1,000 jobs are likely to be lost, which added to the 6,500 already to be lost, gives a huge total indeed. Does the right hon. Gentleman think it wise—indeed, is it not foolish?—that within the short space of three months nearly 8,000 people should be put on the dole? Is not this one of the falsities of his argument?

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) was a member of the Government who, in the end—I pay credit to them for it—bit the bullet and brought to an end steel making in several towns that were mainly dependent for employment on steel. All credit to them. We critise them for delaying the decisions and we criticise them for changing their tune now that they are in opposition. It is right for the Government to take action to mitigate the social consequences of these decisions. The Government have shown, in the announcements made by them about Shotton and Corby, that they do not wish to avoid that obligation in any way. Of course we shall fulfil it.

Mr. Barry Jones: What about the time scale?

Sir K. Joseph: Had the Labour Government acted sooner, there would have been a better employment prospect for the people concerned.

Mr. Robert Adley: We have had interventions from three Labour Members representing Welsh constituencies, and they have talked about jobs. Has my right hon. Friend seen on the tape that Signode Steel, an American company, has stated today that because of the steel strike and secondary picketing it has pulled out of a project to build a big plant and create many jobs in Swansea? Will my right hon. Friend please get across to Labour Members how much damage the strike is doing to the economy?

Sir K. Joseph: Yes, I have seen that information. I fear that that lost oppor-

tunity will not be the last, and they will not be the last jobs to be lost if the strike continues. I am arguing that increased productivity is intensely in the interests of the steel workers.
The pressure to become competitive depends upon steel workers accepting that it is in their own interests to become competitive. If taxpayers find more money the steel workers will be lulled into thinking that they need not become more competitive. Yet, despite all these arguments, it will be presented—it is being presented—as cruel and stupid not to put in some more of the long-suffering taxpayers' money to buy peace yet again. But it is neither kind nor sensible to buy peace. It would be another step on the downward path, a big step, because some managements and many unions would think that they could still go on ignoring economic reality.
That is what this strike is about—ignoring or not ignoring economic reality. It is not about higher pay. There was not much difference in money between the figures being discussed when the negotiations broke down. The significant difference—it is a big one—is where the money comes from. As I have said, the choice is whether the money comes from the taxpayer—who will already have found£4,000 million by the end of this financial year—or from higher earnings through higher productivity, better work practice, better management and better manning at all levels. It will not do to pay lip service to higher productivity but insist on the extra wages regardless, and then to insist on more wages for higher productivity on top. Unit costs would rocket, making us even more uncompetitive.
The question is not about higher pay. The question is whether the higher pay is in return for something or for nothing. Should the steel worker get something real in return for giving something real or should he get something real in return for the promise of something real? That is the question.
It is not enough to promise to achieve higher productivity. It is a sad fact that there have been agreements before—like the one in January 1976—in which managements and unions promised to collaborate to achieve higher productivity. Nothing much has happened. The gap


in productivity between us and our competitors is wider than ever, despite all our huge investment and modern plant and despite the promises. This time both sides must reach an agreement that will produce results.
It is said—no doubt it will be said again today—that I take management's side. The very use of the concept of "sides" is another symptom of the British disease. There is a common interest—of pensioners, of workers, of managers—in industry being competitive. The more taxpayers' money has to be used to finance loss-making industries, the less there is for the taxpayer and for public services. I speak, or I try to speak, for all the interests concerned—for steelworkers, for steel management, for steel users, for steel suppliers, and for pensioners and for taxpayers.
This dispute is really tragic self-injury by the steel workers. The clash is between one group of workers and much larger numbers of workers whose jobs in other industries are being, or will be, damaged by this strike. This dispute is a clear example of the British disease—a demand for higher pay without a readiness to co-operate in financing that higher pay by higher productivity.
This dispute is an example of the reasons why British wages, British salaries, British pensions and British public services are poorer than they could be and poorer than they are in many countries abroad. This dispute will inevitably lead to fewer steel jobs and an even smaller steel industry; and yet, if a sensible settlement is reached that the British Steel Corporation can finance within the money available from customers and taxpayers, there is real hope of a competitive British steel industry paying its way and paying good earnings for good output. That is the prize.
Where does the Labour Party stand? Does it stand for the interests of everyone, or is it part of the British disease arguing in favour of something for nothing? I hope that it stands where we in the Government and those on the Government side of the House stand—for everyone. Opposition Members may mock, but it is we on this side of the House who stand for the interests of the

pensioners, the wage earners, the salary earners, the taxpayers and the steel workers.

Mr. John Silkin: This debate takes place as we enter the third week of a dispute in the steel industry that is of such potential danger to the whole of the British economy that I am astonished that the Secretary of State should at this stage have made so thin an offering to the House and that he should have gone back on all the basic principles which have governed Government and the industry in past years. [Interruption.] We are dealing with the first national strike in the steel industry for 53 years. Does not the hon. Gentleman think that that is important? Does he not want to know why, when for 53 years a moderate trade union has not called for a national strike, it has called for one now?
On one matter I agree with the Secretary of State. It is impossible to isolate this debate from the dispute. This is not a dispute between management on the one hand and unions on the other. This is a dispute between the Government and the unions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Is it?"] It is perfectly true. Before Christmas I gave the right hon. Gentleman the chance to refute a story in The Guardianthat he wanted to foment a strike in the steel industry. I accepted his refutation. But, in his initial suggestion of a 2 per cent. increase, however phrased, in real terms, he was saying that that was the only money on the counter. That suggestion would have led any sensible person to assume that a strike was exactly what the Secretary of State was after.
This dispute arises out of one major decision—the decision by the right hon. Gentleman that there will be no further support for the steel industry and that it must break even starting in March 1980. That is the cause of the dispute.

Mr. Adley: The right hon. Gentleman asks about the cause of the strike. He is repeating what the TUC has said. To paraphrase him, is he not now saying that this is a political strike? Is that his view, and is he in favour of political strikes?

Mr. Silkin: I said that this is a strike between the Government on the one hand and the unions on the other. The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington


(Mr. Adley) can make it as political as he likes. No doubt he will.

Mr. Marlow: Mr. Marlow rose—

Mr. Silkin: I shall give way, but this is the last time for the present.

Mr. Marlow: I am grateful. Will the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to tell the House who called the steel strike and whom they consulted before they called it?

Mr. Silkin: The Secretary of State caused the strike the moment he talked about liability starting in March 1980. The Secretary of State—

Sir Keith Joseph: What is new about all this? My predecessor, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley), said in the House that part of the then Government's policy was that
the financial objectives of the BSC should be to break even by the financial year 1979–80."—[Official Report, 22 May 1978; Vol. 950, c. 1105.]
Our requirement for BSC to break even is for one year later.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Silkin: I shall answer if hon. Gentlemen will give me a little peace and quiet in which to do so.
The right hon. Gentleman knows—if he does not, it is simply because he is deaf, since it has been said to him over and over again—that there is a difference here. There is all the difference in the world between being told by BSC that it hopes to break even by March 1980, saying that that is an excellent idea and that it should be a target, and putting a rigid handcuff upon the industry and refusing it any further money in the light of the current conditions, many of which were imposed by the right hon. Gentleman and the Government.

Sir Keith Joseph: Is the House to understand, therefore, that the reference to it being Government policy for BSC to break even was meaningless when my predecessor used it? He did not refer to a forecast by BSC; he referred to it being Government policy for BSC
to break even by the financial year 1979–80.

Mr. Silkin: Of course it was Government policy that it should break even, but the economic conditions that occurred

after that—mostly attributable to the right hon. Gentleman and the Government Front Bench [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the world slump?"] Hon. Gentlemen shout about a world slump. I will deal with that in a moment—I intended to do so—and we shall see exactly where we are on that issue.
Let us examine what the Secretary of State is saying—[Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Gentlemen will do me the courtesy of listening to me telling them what the right hon. Gentleman says. The Secretary of State says that labour productivity is at the root of the trouble in the steel industry. He says that productivity is not good enough. After his statement on Monday on the steel dispute, he was asked whether he would agree—as the unions seem to want him to agree—to an inquiry into the steel industry. He replied, and rightly, that there had been a report by the steel sector working party of the NEDC and that that was a sufficient inquiry.
I pointed out last Monday that, according to that report, from 1975 to 1978—I do not think that it goes further than that—there had been a rise in labour productivity of 16 per cent. Part of the right hon. Gentleman's case is international comparisons. He says that our labour productivity is not as good as that of other countries. After referring to the labour productivity of 16 per cent., the report continues—

Sir Keith Joseph: Sir Keith Joseph rose—

Mr. Silkin: The right hon. Gentleman is very impatient, bearing in mind the fact that he accused me of misquoting and denied last Monday that the report spoke of 16 per cent. productivity. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman had better listen. The report says:
International comparisons of labour productivity are open to many criticisms—differing definitions of the industry, the extent to which sub-contractors are used etc.
In other words, there is no real standard of comparison between the two. The report says—and this is the important point on which the right hon. Gentleman intervened a moment ago—that, though productivity had risen 16 per cent. since 1975, it was still 13 per cent. below the 1973 level. That is the point the right hon. Gentleman made.
However, the right hon. Gentleman's memory seems to be failing from time to time these days. Perhaps he has forgotten what 1973 was like. It was the year of the Barber boom. It was the freak year in which there was a 7 per cent. rise, in real terms, in GDP. It was the year in which money was printed so fast that one almost felt that forgers had got hold of it. That is the basis of the 13 per cent. If the right hon. Gentleman is advocating that we go back to the Barber year, I do not think he will take the House with him.
I agree—so do the unions—that we must improve productivity. It has never been part of my case that we should not. However, the right hon. Gentleman said that, following the agreement of 23 January 1976, nothing much had happened. Nothing much has happened, except that the union has voluntarily agreed that its manpower should be cut by 35,000 men. Is that the "nothing much" that has happened? About 35,000 families are involved in redundancies, and the Secretary of State says that nothing much has happened.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that this afternoon I have received a communication from the Welsh director of the British Steel Corporation, Mr. Peter Allen, indicating that there will be nearly 7,000 further redundancies at Port Talbot and 4,500 more redundancies at Llanwern? Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Secretary of State did not even refer to these matters? What kind of a Minister is he?

Mr. Silkin: Nor did the Secretary of State point out that, as a result of those closures, which have nothing to do with the immediate dispute in the steel industry, 21 pits may be idle and mine workers will be out of work. [HON. MEMBERS: "Tell that to Mr. Sirs"] Hon. Gentlemen should take note that Mr. Sirs has impressed the country. He has shown that he is extremely careful, cautious and very moderate. The country appreciates that.
In the light of the figures, how dare the Secretary of State say that the union has not co-operated in the attempts to get productivity moving? There has been an increase in productivity partly because the

unions have been willing to accept self-discipline and appalling hardship.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: The right hon. Member has called in aid a number of reports. Perhaps he has not read the Scholey report on the steel industry which was referred to in The Timestoday. That report followed a visit by the unions and management to Japan. It is an important report which probably indicates more clearly than anything else the challenge to the British steel industry, and yet the publication of the report was vetoed by the union representatives.

Mr. Silkin: It was vetoed by the union representatives—if one must use emotive language—because the British and Japanese steel industries are not on all fours. The Japanese industry is composed of a wider group than our industry, and fair comparison could not be made.
I referred to the NEDC working party report because it was the one on which the Secretary of State said we should base our discussion as it was a form of inquiry. I could mention other reports.

Mr. James Tinn: Is it not fairer to compare like with like? There is a new complex in Redcar where the manning levels and productivity compare favourably with those anywhere in the world. That is what British steel workers do when they are given the machinery.

Mr. Homewood: The Scholey report was not published because there was no agreement between the unions and the management in the delegation to Japan. In a single plant there was a discrepancy of 7,000 workers.

Mr. Silkin: It is wise for me to stick to what the Secretary of State suggested should be our reference point—the NEDC report.
The Secretary of State is impertinent to tell the men who have accepted appalling redundancies that they are not playing their part. The unions agree that there should be better productivity; but better productivity does not necessarily mean that there should be a contraction of the industry. That is what the Secretary of Sate is after, and that is the difference between him and the unions. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State's view is


based upon the Treasury forecast for 1980 to which reference is made in the NEDC report.
The Treasury forecasts that there will be a fall in gross domestic product in 1980. That is certainly one of the indicators of demand in steel. The report gives other reasons, all of which are within the competence of the Government, and some are part of the Government's central economic policy. The report refers to the strong rising tide of imported finished manufactured goods. Part of the difficulty is caused by the Government's failure even to contemplate regulating the growth in imported manufactured goods.
The report states:
The rapid rise in the imports of finished manufactured goods into the United Kingdom is a very worrying development for the United Kingdom industry.
We have heard not one word from the right hon. Gentleman about how he proposes to deal with that. The report continues:
The high exchange rate combined with a rate of cost inflation above those of our major competitors is reducing the profitability of our export business.
Those factors are well within the Government's competence and are affected by their central economic policy.
Even in the light of that, perhaps especially in the light of that, we should be aiming not for contraction but for a general expansion of the steel industry. I shall explain what I mean. Last year the demand for United Kingdom steel amounted to 17 million tonnes. The Government's requirement that steel production be contracted to 15 million tonnes is a deliberate policy of refusal to meet existing customer demand.

Sir Keith Joseph: There was no Government requirement involved in the British Steel Corporation's decision. It decided on the amount of steel that it thought it could sell and make a profit. There was no Government requirement. It was purely a management decision.

Mr. Silkin: The Secretary of State likes to claim that he is the invisible man. All I can say is that for an invisible man he casts a large shadow. He talks in terms of pure profit. He does not talk about the importance of the industry. He is denying the resources necessary to the steel industry, and that is forcing the

industry to contract production from 17 million tonnes to 15 million tonnes. It seems that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me.

Mr. Robert Banks: In view of the statement by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) when he was Secretary of State that the steel industry should reach break-even point in 1979, will the right hon. Gentleman address his mind to the central issue of how the industry is to reach a break-even point even by 1984?

Mr. Silkin: My right hon. Friend the Member- for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) was in receipt of the hope and aspiration of the British Steel Corporation that it would break even in the economic circumstances of that time. It is interesting that the Secretary of State has not been able to quote a statement by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield in which he applied the rigid ultimatum now being issued by the Secretary of State, and the right hon. Gentleman's officials have examined every statement and utterance by my right hon. Friend.
The contraction is a deliberate act of Government policy. I cannot imagine anything more foolish and futile at this time. Perhaps the House is unaware of the inter play and interlocking of issues. We are told that we face one of the most dangerous international situations since the war. What are we to do?

Mr. Michael Foot: Kill the steel industry.

Mr. Silkin: Exactly. That is the Government's policy. We shall have to rely upon foreign steel. I suppose that next the Government will refuse to continue the production of titanium if no profit is made so that we can rely on Russian titanium. Such an attitude is more than stupid. That is the right hon. Gentleman's philosophy.

Mr. Julian Amery: The right hon. Member is dealing with an important issue. Of course, if the contraction of the industry as envisaged weakened our capability to maintain our defences, the position would be very serious indeed. I have drawn my right hon. Friend's attention to the matter and he has given assurances that there is no risk of that. If the opposite were proved,


there would then be a case for intervention.

Mr. Silkin: The right hon. Gentleman and I are old enough to remember when, in the 1930s, the Government cut down on steel production in Jarrow. By 1939 there was not enough steel being produced in Jarrow. He knows that as well as I do.
We are not only concerned with defence. The Secretary of State is very keen on international comparisons when they concern labour productivity, even if the report which he blesses states that it is impossible to make such international comparisons. It has to be taken with the reservation that I quoted.
As far as I know, there is no group of companies on the Continent that has broken even in steel making. One group of steel makers in West Germany made a profit of 3 per cent. last year. All the others are losing money. In most of West Germany, and in the whole of Belgium, France and Italy, the steel-making concerns are so much in the red that, according to the NEDC report, not one of them expects to break even before the end et 1981 at the earliest. Yet the Secretary of State talks about profits.

Sir Keith Joseph: Practically every one of the steel firms or industries concerned is reducing its losses, either sharply or very sharply, whereas the British Steel Corporation has been making the same loss this year and last year, despite having to pay lower interest this year.

Mr. Silkin: The right hon. Gentleman should look again at the figures and at the operating costs. He is taking into account all the costs, including notional interest. The majority of steel-making concerns in Europe are subsidised up to the hilt, in particular by the subsidies on coking coal. If the subsidy on coking coal given in West Germany were given in Britain, the difference would be£135 million. With that, I would expect a settlement of the dispute in the steel industry very quickly. That is the real difference.
Labour productivity is only one of the many factors necessary in steel making. The report loved so much by the Secretary of State, and on which he tells us to base our words, bears me out. It states:

Most importantly the emphasis of the studies has been on all aspects of efficiency—plant and equipment, use of materials as well as labour, since one cannot be satisfactorily studied without reference to the others.
That is correct. That is why Labour Members are appalled when the Secretary of State takes such a small view of the industry. When the Secretary of State talks about productivity, he is really talking about wholesale sackings.
During the debates last year, I pointed out that everything was interconnected-steel, shipbuilding, motor cars, the NEB, regional aid, and so on. They all dovetailed in together. The right hon. Gentleman's philosophy does not accept that there can be an economic plan for the whole country. He compartmentalizes everything, whereas all those industries are interdependent and interrelated. Thus, when we deal with steel, he sees the decision as though it were a commodity in a supermarket—"Please may I have a million tons of steel?"
This issue is central to the whole economy. If British steel goes, British manufacturing goes, together with its many industries, including coal. That has been proved by the South Wales decision today and the closure of pits that will follow the 11,000 redundancies in the steel industry. That will be catastrophic in terms of national wealth and in human terms. It will result in the death of whole communities up and down the country. We heard—I wish the Secretary of State had told us himself—about the troubles which will afflict South Wales, an area that is hit over and over again by the same policies and the same lack of a general economic approach.
Because of the Secretary of State's policies, men may never work again in the areas in which they work today. That happened before the Second World War, and it could happen again. That is the position with which we are faced. That is why we take this view. That is why workers in other industries will not be impressed by the Secretary of State's attempt to try to put a wedge between them and the steel workers.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of steel workers' pay being subsidised by other workers. They feel—I have heard it said up and down the country—that a 2 per cent. offer in new money is an insult. They are right. Also, they well understand


that the continuance of steel making safeguards their own livelihoods. They know that there are certain industries which must be safeguarded, and which they are prepared to see safeguarded.
All the Secretary of State's attack on the cost of steel making applies to the far greater cost to the taxpayer and other workers in Britain of protecting farming. If the Secretary of State has a mind to try to save the taxpayers that cost, I suggest that before putting forward such a proposal he should have a word with the Minister of State, whose brother, the president of the NFU, might have a totally different view on the matter.
The Secretary of State is quite unaware of how much the rest of the economy depends on steel. He is like a man who, observing a fire in a building, which is in danger of burning down a whole town, refuses to call the fire service because it might cost the taxpayer money.

Mr. Michael Morris: Why, then, has the engineering industry increased its penetration of imported steel if it is so dependent upon British steel?

Mr. Silkin: The answer to that is twofold and is contained in the sector working party report. First, there is the import penetration of finished goods and, secondly, there is the subsidy on German steel making.
The Secretary of State asked me a question on Monday. I replied in the affirmative but he was so busy asking me the question that he did not notice what answer I was giving. He asked whether I would agree that the taxpayer should pay more. The answer is "Yes, of course." That would also be the taxpayer's answer.
Interestingly, the report of the sector working party, which the right hon. Gentleman is so keen that we should observe, agrees with me. On page 8 it urges the Government to
support our steel industry in no less favourable a manner than that adopted by the Governments of countries with whom it has to compete, especially the ECSC countries".
When are we to have that subsidy on coking coal in this country—£135 million worth of it? When are we to ensure that that coking coal does not come into this country at subsidised rates?
The point about the taxpayer having to support the industry, having to give more money to it, comes up again and again in the report. It says, for example, that
future sales will be based increasingly on quality rather than quantity.
The report goes on to explain what that means. It says that
the industry needs to attract and retain more skilled people, engineers and technicians, to work in the increasingly technically sophisticated industry of the 1980s".
How on earth is that objective to be achieved, and how on earth are the necessary research and development to be obtained, unless more money is available? It cannot be achieved within the nil cash limits set by the right hon. Gentleman.
There is one other point to which should like to refer, and it occurs on page 3—

Sir Keith Joseph: The right lion. Gentleman referred to a nil cash limit. We are providing£450 million from the taxpayer in the coming financial year, on top of£700 million this year.

Mr. Silkin: I was talking about how much the right hon. Gentleman would have available for research and development, and the answer is nil. He should work it out for himself. Perhaps he has forgotten again.
On page 3, the report says:
Major public expenditure will be required to ameliorate the social consequences of these changes.
This is a very costly business. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the£450 million and the£700 million, pointing out that the rest of the workers of this country subsidise the steel workers of this country to the tune of£1,800 a year per head. The fact is that about 80 per cent. of all the expenditure in the steel industry during the past five years has been on capital investment. But never mind: the right hon. Gentleman says that it is to pay for the workers' wages.
Let the right hon. Gentleman take that£1,800 a year, which he says is being used to subsidise the workers in the steel industry, and then proceed to tell us what the costing shows if he then weighs that against the loss of tax of those who are made redundant, the unemployment benefit to those who are made redundant, and the redundancy payments. He will find that keeping them at work is not


only the thing that the workers in all the industries in our country want; it also happens, in pure financial terms, to be the best possible basis.
The right hon. Gentleman is trying to slide out of the Government's responsibility for the strike. I agree with him as to its dangers. I think that I speak for my right hon. Friends when I say that, in purely parliamentary terms, we shall expect a weekly report from him, every Monday from now on, on what is happening in the industry. He must be prepared to be questioned, as hard and as toughly as he has been during this week, every single week as long as he allows the dispute to continue.
In the meantime, we are facing a position which may destroy our economy. It is as dramatic and as simple as that. That is why I call upon my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the Government in the Division Lobby tonight, so that perhaps tomorrow we may have a new Secretary of State for Industry.

Mr. John Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the fact that a document has been circulated in the course of the debate dealing with the slaughter of the steel industry in Port Talbot and Llanwern, and in view of the fact that that has been ignored totally by the Secretary of State in his speech, would it be in order to ask for leave of the House to be given to him to comment further on this document?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I do not think that it would be in order. No doubt the right hon. and learned Gentleman's comments have been heard by the Minister who is to reply to the debate. Perhaps the matter will be mentioned by him then.

Mr. John H. Osborn: The House has listened to a very courageous speech from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, but there have not been any reasoned arguments form the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) in favour of an amelioration of the position. The Secretary of State was right when he said that the question is one of ignoring or not ignoring economic realities. I sense that even Labour Members are aware of the economic realities facing us.
The right hon. Member for Deptford mentioned keeping people in work in the steel industry. I can understand that concern, but the consequences of this are high overheads, low productivity and high costs of production. He also spoke about help for those people. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, when he replies, will refer to the EEC social fund and to the funds available from the European Coal and Steel Community to ameliorate the redundancies. I hope that he will mention the new jobs that must be created. The nation must ensure that it does not have an overmanned steel industry.
The right hon. Member for Deptford mentioned two firms. I think that he had in mind Dutch and German firms. He also referred to the OECD statistics. I referred to them in the last debate on the industry, pointing out that the steel and engineering industries in France, Germany and elsewhere were on their feet and moving into a profitable position. The fact that this has not been achieved in recent years—and certainly over the last five years—in Britain must be taken into account by hon. Members.
Last night I met some Swiss reporters. I believe that one or two Labour Members also met them. I was in Switzerland only last week. Frequently I go to Germany and France. Most people say to me during these visits "Why is your steel industry in Britain knocking itself, why is your engineering industry knocking itself, so that, when we place orders with you, you cannot deliver? Britain is now reaching the end of the road. Unless there is continuity with people on the bench in the rolling mill, in the forge, and on the mass production line in the car industry, it will not be possible to export the goods which provide the wealth for the standard of living that our people want.
As I mentioned in the debate last December, as a result of disputes and our inability to deliver, our car production 10 years ago was double what it is now. I have tabled a parliamentary question on this matter and I hope to receive elucidation from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
In previous debates I have referred to the paper presented by Alastair Burnet in which he says that the world looks at Britain as a nation of consumers rather than as a nation of producers. Hon.


Members on each side of the House must acknowledge the position and help to give confidence to the steel industry and to the British Steel Corporation. There are Sheffield companies which are still reeling from the consequence of the disputes in the engineering industry and in the car industry. Many citizens are already having second thoughts about the confidence that we showed in British Leyland a few weeks ago. The steel industry, as a result of the present dispute, is losing orders, and particularly export orders. This inevitably means loss of jobs. I urge the right hon. Member for Deptford and others to review the situation, although I understand that a debate is a heated occasion.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: I heard the hon. Gentleman's speech in December when he commented on industrial unrest and I replied to him during the debate. Although he mentioned some industries where there was industrial unrest, we are talking about an industry which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) mentioned a few minutes ago, has not had a major dispute of any kind for many years. Something very serious has happened to provoke a group of very moderate workers to take such actions. Does that not strike the hon. Gentleman as odd, and will he comment on it?

Mr. Osborn: If the right hon. Member will allow me to pursue my own line of thought, I shall willingly stand later and answer a further question if I do not answer him. If I am allowed to make my speech in my own way, we shall proceed more quickly.
A feature of the Sheffield dispute has been the existence of kangaroo courts, and clandestine agreements with management and the private sector and perhaps with shop conveners and shop stewards, and the branch secretaries, of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, the Transport and General Workers Union and the General and Municipal Workers Union. In the national press, British management within the private sector has expressed its apprehension of the press statement produced yesterday by Bill Sirs. Certainly the Morning Telegraph expressed that view. The management knows that it must make a return on capital invested by shareholders. During the last 10 days

management has learnt, and is learning, to live with the power of the kangaroo court.

Mr. Martin Flannery: I represent a Sheffield constituency and I have never heard of any kangaroo courts.

Mr. Osborn: I can show the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) a letter and a statement that appeared in the Morning Telegraph two days ago. It was stated that a manager of a company had had to visit such a court but was turned away and rejected two hours later. I shall send that information to the hon. Member for Hillsborough afterwards.
The difference in Sheffield between this winter and last winter is that a Conservative Government, backed by Conservative Members, are appalled at this demonstration of industrial anarchy. Last winter, under the previous Labour Government, Sheffield was at best paralysed because the Labour Government to a certain extent condoned that anarchy through their close affiliation with the trade union movement, and particularly through those Labour Members who are closely affiliated to those unions. Admittedly, in Sheffield that dispute did not involve the steel industry directly, but other industrial activity did affect it indirectly. Last winter, law-abiding citizens resented the anarchy and as a result they chose a Conservative Government. They expect a Conservative Government to take steps to prevent wildcat anarchy striking the shop floors of our industries.
I shall reiterate the words of the Secretary of State: that it is a matter of great regret that Bill Sirs—a member of the NECD working party which has produced a very adequate report—has been drawn into the strike. Members of this House all know that he can only reflect the view of his executive. He can call on the loyalty of his own members, and he will do so in Sheffield, when he calls on his members in the private sector in Sheffield to strike at the end of this month. It is for him to judge how much resentment will be caused in the private sector. As a Conservative Member, and as an individual who has for 40 years been employed in one way or another in one special steel factory—

Mr. Flannery: A steel owner.

Mr. Osborn: I was a steel owner. I had, at most, 3 per cent. of the shares.

Mr. Flannery: Why does the hon. Gentleman not say so instead of saying that he was an employee?

Mr. Osborn: I was an employee and I owned, at most, 3 per cent. of the shares. That can be looked at in any record.

Mr. Flannery: Vested interests.

Mr. Osborne: In 1947 I had the choice of taking a job outside Sheffield when the Socialists were nationalising that industry. However, I decided to use my management expertise to develop the industry while working for Sheffield. It is regrettable that the sons of many of those who work in Sheffield today have deliberately chosen to use their ability and talents in Canada, the United States of America, Australia and elsewhere. The rewards here are not great enough. Twice this week I have spoken to groups who have pointed out that the attitudes of the Socialist Government drove young men of ability away from Britain. Hon. Members have taken me off my track. However, we must find men of ability to manage the large undertakings that have been developed, including the British Steel Corporation. I am afraid that many of those men of ability have left Britain.
I do not want to exacerbate the situation and I do not believe that any hon. Members wish to do that. I would hope to work towards a reconciliation. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the management of the British Steel Corporation must negotiate with its own unions. In the private sector, the Government can use facilities such as ACAS. That body maintains a continuous dialogue with the private sector. I therefore appeal to those on strike, and to those who will be dragged into it, to consider the consequences both for themselves and for their families. They may not see it, but unless all of us can patch up the dispute there will be difficulties.
The hon. Member for Hillsborough and I have obviously been in touch with Mr. Scholey, who is a Sheffield man and who is number two to Sir Charles Villiers. I have attended meetings with Mr. John. Pennington, who has discussed the problems of the Sheffield steel in-

dustry with local Members of Parliament. Those who read the Morning Telegraph will have seen John Pennington's reply to an article written by Bill Sirs about the reasons for taking strike action. The horrible reality is that the onetime profitable Sheffield steel industry made a loss of£25½ million last year.
Having been instrumental in bringing in new plant and equipment, I know that it takes time to work towards a break-even point, let alone a profitable situation. The Secretary of State has referred to the offer of 2 per cent. The Opposition said that it was an insult, but we know that, with productivity deals and so on, it could amount to between 12 and 16 per cent. During the last 10 years, there have been occasions when, in the so-called non-quoted companies, employees have accepted a freeze in their wages in order to maintain those entities. A hundred years ago, there was an occasion in the history of my company when the employees went on very much reduced wages to see that company through.

Mr. Donald Coleman: Mr. Donald Coleman(Neath) rose—

Mr. Osborn: When a company is making losses, it is madness to expect the bankers or shareholders to tolerate excessive wage payments in order to keep an overmanned industry going. But if there has to be change and reduction it should be gradual, and that is up to the management of British Steel. It is not the concern of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Coleman: Does the hon. Gentleman, in this day and age, expect steel workers to accept that philosophy, particularly in the light of the enormous redundancies announced today and in the light of those that have already occurred in the steel industry?

Mr. Osborn: The hon. Gentleman is illogical. To expect wage increases without orders and when the industry is facing redundancies is muddled thinking.
The object of this debate is to help to clarify the situation. In the British Steel Corporation, public sector employees, whether management or on the shop floor, have been on to a good thing. My guess is that, job for job, a comparison of wages in the private and public sectors will show that workers in British Steel have been at an advantage. It is, therefore, madness for workers in the private sector


of the steel industry to follow the instructions of the confederation to go on strike.
There has been talk of profitability. In Sheffield the private sector has had a difficult time, but over the past 10 years, by and large, it has made reasonable profits and certainly much better than the British Steel Corporation. It has, therefore, shared in the expansion and the improvement noticed in other countries, especially within the EEC.
In the Financial Times this morning, and in other financial commentaries in most newspapers, it has been suggested that the rate of wage increases is going much too far. Although there is no going rate for wage settlements, there is always an average, and increases have been too high. Average earnings in November were 19·2 per cent. higher than a year earlier—and that is compared to 17 per cent. until October. If one group of workers is awarded a pay claim, another looks for the same, irrespective of the recommendations of Clegg.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The hon. Gentleman mentioned his speech in December when he spoke of the changes in the Sheffield-Rotherham area and "Operation Spear". He will be aware of the record-breaking achievements in my constituency, which is close to his. Part of the deal to achieve that performance involved massive redundancies and, therefore, financial benefit. But that benefit was experienced a few years ago and was not matched in the period covered by the hon. Gentleman's figures. The wage increases that steel workers enjoyed a year ago did not come anywhere near the national average.
Since he knows Europe well, the hon. Gentleman should recognise that the record-breaking steel workers, some living in his constituency and many in mine, do not have wages anything like their counterparts in Europe, whose industrial performance is inferior to theirs.

Mr. Osborn: Twenty or 25 years ago, Britain was sixth on the world list for purchasing power per man hour worked. I understand Britain dropped to thirteenth and we are now sixteenth. Britain is certainly well below other Community countries. This trend applies equally to the steel industry.
The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) referred to Germany. Some

of my constituents came to England during the Second World War and in the 1920s and 1930s. In the past few months I have been asked whether the Government realise that the fear of inflation that existed four years ago could cone back again. It has been said that not enough people in the country realise the consequences of rampant inflation. I hope that the experience of Germany will not be repeated here.
I have been on my feet for too long and I apologise.

Mr. Flannery: And spoken a lot of nonsense.

Mr. Osborn: I ask the unions, and the management and the chairman of British Steel, to think carefully about the consequences of their actions. The trade unions must work responsibly with management. Quite frankly, in this country, whether management or workers, we must resolve our difficulties and stop the anarchy that invaded and destroyed Sheffield last winter, and which could upset the private sector of the steel industry this winter.
I welcome the Employment Bill of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and the introduction of the ballot. I only regret that there is no machinery at present for a secret ballot in the steel industry. It is too difficult to impose this at this late stage, but I believe that, had there been a secret ballot, the workers in the steel industry might have voted differently. It would have given them the opportunity to have the right leaders on the shop floor and the chance for second thoughts.
I hope that everyone will work towards reconciliation, and that Sir Charles Villiers and his financiers can work out how they can afford a reasonable offer. I believe that 12 to 16 per cent. is enough, and there is a difference of only 1 or 2 per cent. If a settlement is not reached, the steel industry will suffer the most.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next speaker, may I say to the House that 28 right hon. and hon. Members have indicated their wish to speak, and there may be others. The Chair has no authority to impose a limit on speeches, but it would be immensely helpful and fair to the House if there could be a voluntary limit; and that is no reflection on the next speaker. Mr. Enoch Powell.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Unlike the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn) and, I imagine, most hon. Members who will catch your eye in the course of the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not represent a steel constituency. In the rolling hills of County Down, steelworks are conspicuous by their absence. However, it is not a subject that concerns only steel constituencies. It concerns steel consumers as well as steel producers; it concerns every section of the community and every part of the kingdom. What touches all should be debated by all, albeit with due brevity.
Whatever may be the correct figure of the monetary increase offered to the BSC workers in the range that has been mentioned—and the range has been from a derisory 2 per cent. to a highly speculative 14 per cent. or thereabouts—there is no doubt that it represents a real reduction. Against a background of 17 per cent. to 19 per cent. inflation, which is not expected to fall in the near future, what we have been talking about, and what BSC and its employees have been talking about, is the proposition of a severe real reduction in remuneration.
It is on the basis of the results of BSC that it is argued by those who made and sustained the offer that the real reduction should be accepted. I believe we should accept that that argument is unrealistic and illogical. Because an employer is unable to make a profit with the labour that he is employing, that is no more reason for that labour being paid less than the competitive market rate in real terms than if he were to say to his suppliers of raw materials "You must give me your raw materials now at less than the market rate because I find I am making a loss. I am not making a profit: so I want cheap raw materials. I do not expect you to sell your raw materials at the market level; I claim to have them cheaper."

Mr. Donald Anderson: Mr. Donald Anderson(Swansea, East) rose—

Mr. Powell: I am reluctant to give way to the hon. Gentleman, especially at this stage. I hope that he will forgive me, because I should like to make a fairly simple argument.
I believe that that approach is economically unsound and illogical; and if the

action of the steel workers were purely a response to that approach, then emotionally, if not in other ways, it could be understood. Presumably, it is the primary function of trade unions—whether or not collective bargaining and collective withdrawal of labour serves it in reality is a different question—to secure as far as possible that their members receive what is the going rate, not in a particular firm but for the labour and the skills in that labour market. So, if that were all, I should wholeheartedly say that the steel workers were in the right in this matter.
But, of course, the strike is about more than that. Whatever may be the form of the strike, it is not only about remuneration. It is also about numbers employed. The numbers employed are at issue in the dispute as much as the rate at which they are to be employed. Now, the numbers employed and the rate—the demand and the price—are interdependent variables. One depends upon the other: the higher the one, the lower the other, and vice versa. Nor can it be otherwise. A trade union can decide that it will go for a given wage, but it cannot then decide that it will also go for a given volume of employment. Alternatively—the hon. Member for Hallam cited a historical case—it can go for a given level, place and circumstance of employment, but it cannot then specify the wage at which it will secure the outcome it desires.
Economically speaking, it is possible to opt for only one alternative, not both. When the steel workers say that they are going both for a given wage—the going wage, the competitive wage—and also for a given level of employment—or, I shall put the matter more carefully, if they say that they claim to negotiate with the BSC both the rate payable and the numbers employed—then, in the second half of that claim, they have passed from the economic sphere into the political. The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) recognised that fact openly. I wondered that he did it so openly. At the beginning of his speech he said that "this is not a strike between the workers and BSC but between the steel workers and the Government."
The reason why I am doubtful either that that is fully true or that the right hon. Gentleman meant to accept it in that form is that I do not believe that the Labour Party, as the parliamentary and


political representation of the trade unions, regards the trade union movement as exercising a claim to govern. For that is what is happening as soon as it is said that "this is a strike between the workers and the Government". From that moment, and in that context, it becomes a claim on the part of organised labour to take decisions on taxation and borrowing—decisions which lie at the centre of parliamentary government—out of the hands of the House and put them into other hands. Unless I am much mistaken, from the inception of the Labour Party that is a deduction which it has forsworn and whatever we may hear about 2,000 Trotskyists and so on, I am prepared to believe that the Labour Party is as committed parliamentary as any other party in British politics.
Therefore, a grave issue is raised—above all, if I may say so with respect, for hon. Members around me—by the second aspect of the steel dispute. This House is the place—and the only place, because it represents all the interests involved—where the decision can be taken whether or not the power of the State to tax, borrow or create money should be used in order to secure the maintenance of a given level of employment in a given industry in a given plant.
Yet there is an even larger conflict implicit than that between organised labour and the parliamentary commitment of its political representatives. This, in the end, is a strike not only against the Government. In so far as it is concerned with maintaining the level of employment and the pattern of employment, it is a strike against reality.
There are two courses—not alternative courses, for they may becombined—for which a demand is made. First, that profitable industry—there is nowhere else from which the real resources can be drawn—shall be laid under further contribution to maintain the present level of employment in the steel industry, or, at any rate, a higher level of employment than would otherwise be maintained. The second possibility, which could be combined with the first, is that we should begin to build walls around ourselves, that we should decline to import where we can import with advantage, that we should consume our own smoke, so to speak, and create the necessary extra demand by

building a ring-fence around this country's economy.
Whichever course we take, or both, we are setting ourselves not in conflict with this Government or any Government but with reality. For we can be sure that, however high are the walls that we build, reality outside will break them down. As fast as we restrict our imports, so fast will other countries be obliged to restrict their imports from us. The attempt to match the consequences of shrinking trade will then lead us on to raise those barriers higher until the time comes when the evidently self-defeating process would have to be abandoned.

Mr. Alan Clark: I hesitate to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman in the flow of his eloquence, but I should like to ask him why such a trade war would be as disastrous as he forecasts. There has been a net deficit on our trading account for the last 25 years, and we must gain if all trade were frozen.

Mr. Powell: We have not been in net deficit, because there is no such thing as a net overall deficit. We have been in a net trading deficit, which has been balanced on capital account. That is what has happened. However, that fact does not entitle us to say that we can indefinitely maintain employment in the present pattern of our productive industries by refusing the trade relations with the rest of the world which that pattern implies.
As the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) has offered me an excuse, I should like to offer an interpolation or footnote. A good deal of the talk about competitiveness and comparability is sheer words—totally misleading, a will-o'-the-wisp. To take an example from history, it was not the efficiency of the Bombay cotton mills which caused the cotton manufacturers of Lancashire at the end of the last century to demand that restrictions should be placed upon Indian exports to this country. Nor is track': ever governed by comparative statistics—so many tons per man-hour or week: it is governed through the channels of trade by means of the exchange rate, which reflects the whole pattern and economic reality of the world in which we live and trade. That is why these attempts to compare ourselves with the


Japanese, and then say "How terrible it is that we are only one-sixth as good as the Japanese and no wonder we are in a mess", are sheer delusion.
To bring this footnote to an end, there is yet another point. It is this. Provided we face reality and accept the consequences of what we are doing, we have a perfect right to decide in this country whether we will so conduct our affairs that we attain Japanese rates of productivity, with all that that implies, or not. We are free to choose, but only provided that we choose honestly and openly in the light of the facts.
I turn finally to another expression that was used by the right hon. Member for Deptford. He said we were "facing the fact that workers and their children in the next generation would not be doing the same work in the same places". That is the reality which we are attempting to deny. That is the reality against which the strikers, by implication and ultimately, are attempting to strike. Yet this is not something new. It is something which has happened at varying rates and over differing lengths of time throughout our industrial history, that men have not again worked at the same work, nor their children at the same work and in the same places.
I do not think that even the most detached observer can suppose that the British steel industry, with its present size and pattern in this country, is experiencing a temporary dip—hard times during which the industry should live off its fat or borrow until it gets over the hump and back to normality. I do not believe that that is the picture, nor do I believe that that is how the British steel industry sees it. Surely we know that we face a major alteration in the size and nature of the British steel industry to fit the rest of the pattern of a British economy which can survive and prosper in coming years.
That being so, there rests not only upon the leaders of the unions but upon those most closely connected with them in this House, and on everyone, a duty of understanding, of comprehension and of leadership, which will enable us, without losing faith in representative parliamentary government—yes, and without losing faith in the collective bargaining processes of labour—face, instead of vainly attempting to fight, the reality of the future.

Mr. Michael Brown: I have had the pleasure of catching your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker, on four occasions in steel debates, but I feel a certain amount of trepidation in following the speech of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell).
I followed the cogency of his argument about the interdependence of the level of wages and the numbers employed in the steel industry. I also read his recent article in a newspaper a few days ago. Certainly I go along with the overwhelming majority of his comments. He is right to point out that any industry, when it buys labour, is in the same position as it is when it purchases any other goods. When the British Steel Corporation purchases labour, it must expect to pay the going rate in the same way as it pays the going rate for coking coal. Of course, when faced with an increase in the price of that coking coal, if it regards that price increase as excessive, it seeks to try to cut the consumption of coking coal or find alternative ways of minimising the excess cost. Therefore, if the price of labour were to rise excessively, the BSC would understandably seek to try to cut the cost of that labour in some way. Here is the direct correlation between the size of the industry and the employment within it and the size of the wage rate.
I represent a constituency in which there is one town which depends entirely on steel. Obviously, I have a vested interest in the future of the steel industry on behalf of that town. Recognising that there is a clear interdependence between the numbers employed in the steel industry and the wage rate, I feel, as do the overwhelming majority of steel workers in my constituency, that if a choice must be made it is far more important, in these difficult times, to ensure that there are jobs to go to than that the high cost of the labour prices them out of jobs altogether.
I turn specifically to the present dispute. It is sad and regrettable that this strike has occurred. In my view, there is no enthusiasm for it. I maintain that if the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation had confronted its members with a ballot, as has been the case with other unions, such as the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Union of Blastfurnacemen, there would not have been a vote in favour of the strike.

Mr. Coleman: Is not the hon. Member aware that one of the parties to this strike is the National Union of Blastfurnacemen?

Mr. Brown: I am aware that the National Union of Blastfurnacemen is in dispute with the BSC, but I was, of course, referring to that union's decision on closures and action relating to Corby.
It is my view that unions should ballot their work forces, and a union such as the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, which is a novice on strike action, has a responsibility to its members, particularly when they are threatened with the difficult world steel situation of the present time.
I believe that the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation was relatively near to achieving a settlement with the British Steel Corporation last week, but because it was negotiating with the BSC during a strike it was more concerned with ensuring that the wheels and mechanics of organising the strike were being oiled than with trying to arrive at an agreement with the corporation. I am sad that the ISTC has walked out of negotiations so early in the dispute. There was still room for talking, but, understandably and rightly, the BSC wanted to ensure that it was not giving away money that it did not have.

Mr. Homewood: How many signatures did the hon. Member get on the petition that he has boasted about so frequently?

Mr. Brown: I received a petition with more than 700 signatures before the strike took place, and every day I receive a large number of letters and telephone calls from those who are involuntarily on strike. Inevitably, with the closed shop, and when the politics of fear reign in an industrial dispute—

Dr. Jeremy Bray: As one of six hon. Members representing upwards of 20,000 steel workers, I can say that I have not had one letter or telephone call deploring the position of the unions in the strike.

Mr. Brown: I can only say that I make myself available to my constituents and advertise the fact that I want to hear their views. I hope that other hon. Members do the same.
I turn to the negotiations and the offer that the British Steel Corporation has

made. There is a myth about the 2 per cent. The British Steel Corporation, I readily concede, was wrong in the method that it used to advertise the pay increase that was on offer. There was a considerable amount to be gained by the unions negotiating productivity agreements. The corporation tailed abysmally to indicate to its work force what was available. There were, of course, strings attached, but, as everyone recognises, the BSC is bankrupt. The corporation is right to elicit from the trade unions agreements on demanning and flexibility.
There has been some debate in the Chamber and elsewhere about international comparisons. One cannot help noting that an international comparison in the NEDC sector working party report on manual workers shows that it takes 10·9 man hours in the United Kingdom to produce one tonne of crude steel, compared with 5·9 hours in West Germany. There are other international comparisons. One is bound to accept that there is considerable—

Mr. Dan Jones: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, because I admire his youth and courage in supporting his Government, but is it not a tact that this Government, like the previous Labour Government, should have realised years ago that the Japanese were producing steel by a method that was immaculate in comparison with ours? Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the main responsibility for this situation belongs to the employing section of the steel industry? Does not he agree that we should have discovered years ago why the Japanese were able to produce steel in this fashion and brought those ideas to the British steel industry? Is not that the responsibility of the chairman and management. and not of the men?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of subjects. I cannot comment on them in the time available. I accept that many mistakes have occurred in the steel industry through no fault of the employees. If the hon. Gentleman's Government had taken some remedial action only four or five years ago, there would have been an opportunity to overcome the problems that we now face. I agree that mistakes of the past are part of the reason for present difficulties.
I float again my idea, put to the Secretary of State recently, that, if there is to be no opportunity through the union mechanism for the workers to be consulted, the British Steel Corporation, having failed abysmally to sell its productivity scheme, might consider sending a letter from the chairman to all employees setting out what is at stake, the background and the reasons why it is not possible to pay something for nothing. My experience in my constituency shows that realism does exist. The steel industry in Scunthorpe has slimmed down and lost 2,800 jobs. The workers want to ensure that no further jobs are lost and that a viable steel industry exists in the area. I believe that the workers would respond favourably to the corporation. One cannot make a fairer offer.
I am sorry that this normally moderate union, usually so willing to talk and negotiate, should have abandoned the negotiating table so early and so readily. The union is now plainly out of its depth. Control of the strike has effectively passed from reasonable men of common sense to those who see an opportunity in the strike to confront the Government. The flying pickets, the extremists and the fellow travellers who jump in on any dispute have been waiting for an opportunity. It is unfortunate that a moderate union should be in the forefront carrying with it those fellow travellers who have decided to use the strike. Those fellow travellers are no friends of the steel workers, whose best interests will be served, as I accept from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, by a rationalised and viable steel industry.
I am normally sceptical of ACAS as a body. I shall reserve my judgment, in the hope that it may be able to pinpoint some common ground. If, however, ACAS fails, there may be a role not for the Secretary of State for Industry but for the Secretary of State for Employment to see both sides to try to identify areas of common ground. It must be made clear that in such circumstances the Secretary of State has no honey pot available. This is a bankrupt industry. The sooner the union recognises that the days of beer and sandwich negotiations at No. 10 Downing Street, with a worthless cheque to follow, are over, the better. Those negotiations in nationalised Indus-

tries in the past have led the steel industry and the country into the difficulties that we face.
The unions say to the corporation that the Government will lose this dispute. Implicit in that claim is that someone will win the dispute. But there will not be any winners. There can be only losers. This country will lose and is, indeed, already losing. The steel industry will lose and is, indeed, already losing. I can give an example. Immediately the strike threat occurred, the engineering industry in my constituency, which uses steel, sought to obtain steel before the picketing started. It had to obtain steel from abroad. It had to sign a contract for 12 months to carry it over the strike difficulties.
Those engaged in the engineering industry had stockpiled steel during the period between the strike threat and the time when the strike began. That is understandable. There were jobs in that industry to be protected and preserved for the benefit of the country's economy. For better or worse, a contract has been signed to obtain steel from abroad This means that orders for home-produced steel have been lost for a year, if not for ever. Even if the strike were settled tomorrow, some orders will have been lost for ever to the British steel industry.
I wish that the union would recognise this situation. I wish also that it would recognise that it is not the Government who are threatening to take away jobs from the industry. It is the action of the union itself that is doing that. This normally moderate union is threatening future employment prospects. The country will lose. The steel industry will lose. There can be no winners. The worst losers of all, through this dispute, can only be the steel workers.

Miss Joan Maynard: I believe that I represent as many steel workers in the House as does the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown). I can tell him that I have received no letters complaining that steel workers do not support the strike. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn) talked about the people of this country voting for the Tories. They certainly did not vote for the Tories in Sheffield. Nor did they vote


for the Tories in South Yorkshire. The hon. Gentleman cannot have heard about the Socialist republic of South Yorkshire.
I assure hon. Members that when I was on the picket line on Monday morning the workers were solid in their support for the strike. It is untrue to say that if a ballot were taken the workers would vote against the strike. I am not opposed to a ballot. But it is Conservative Members who would get a shock. When the Secretary of State said that he speaks for the steel workers, I can only say, having listened to them, that he does not speak for them. They want to know when the right hon. Gentleman intends to intervene in the strike in a positive sense, instead of in the negative sense of setting cash limits and telling the industry to balance its books in a way that the Government know is totally impossible.
I am not surprised that the strike is solid, considering the redundancies that face the industry, topped off by an offer of 2 per cent. It was certainly not 10 per cent., as the Secretary of State said. The offer was 2 per cent. That was not a wage increase but a consolidation. It was offered in the face of almost 20 per cent. inflation. What do the Government expect? Do they think that workers will not strike when they are put in that position?
Nothing makes me so angry as hearing people telling workers that they cannot have something for nothing. When have workers ever had anything for nothing? They have earned every penny that they have, and they have produced the nation's wealth. They are the only wealth producers. It is an insult to workers to tell them that they cannot have something for nothing.
How would hon. Members react if one third of them were made redundant and those who remained had their wages frozen? It was not long ago that hon. Members were clamouring for a much greater wage increase than that sought by the steel workers.
There are many factors in the steel industry strike, apart from the workers. For example, there is the EEC and all that that means to our steel industry. The purpose of the EEC is to facilitate multinationals. It is doing exactly that. It is having a bonanza in Sheffield.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Adam Butler): Will the

hon. Lady give credit to the EEC for the support that it is giving to redundant workers? Is she aware that over£7 million from EEC funds has been provided for Shotton alone, plus the arrangements that have been proposed by the Commission, which are known as the Davignon proposals? They have been continued with the support of the Government. They have been largely unchanged. Their purpose is to help the British steel industry as well as the steel industries of our EEC partners.

Miss Maynard: That is a policy not of helping our steel industry but of buying jobs extremely cheaply. I forecast that in five, six or seven years Britain will be buying steel from the very multinationals which are investing their money in South America and South-East Asia. That policy is being aided and abetted by Conservative Members. It is a cheap way of slimming down the industry.
I am convinced that Conservative Members want a slimmed-down steel industry. There have been two debates in the House that have turned on who should control investment in the steel industry, namely, Great Britain or the EEC. In those debates it was clear that the Tories wanted a slimmed-down steel industry because they and many of their friends have their money invested in the multinationals that will have the rake-off in due course.
Who was it who voted against our losing control of our investment in the industry? It was Labour Members who voted against that, not Tory Members. As we know, there is a worldwide steel recession. Virtually all the steel industries in the world are losing money. We know that when there is a recession it is always basic industries, such as steel, that are hit first. In common with other hon. Members, I believe that the workers have been set up for the strike and that the British Steel Corporation is the Government's tool. The corporation is being used by the Government in their attempts to slim down the steel industry. The corporation is using the workers as scapegoats.
Let us consider the facts. We should bear in mind the record of management. For example,£353 million was thrown away on abortive schemes, according to a secret British Steel Corporation document of December 1979. First, there was the


Finniston folly of the Hunterston direct reduction plant in Scotland. That cost£54 million. In 1976 the financial secretary of the corporation argued against that investment. His argument was overruled. The plant was built four years ago and it is still in mothballs. Why has it been in mothballs since it was built?

Sir Anthony Meyer: Yes, why?

Miss Maynard: The reason does not lie with the labour force. The answer is to be found in the management's bad investment policy.

Sir A. Meyer: What?

Miss Maynard: As a result of the plant remaining in mothballs, one of the ore terminals has 33 per cent. too much capacity. Therefore, another£17 million has been written off, making a total of£71 million.
We have seen£37 million go down the drain at Redcar. It was planned to build three giant blast furnaces. Only one has been built because of the recession. The second furnace is still in nieces beside the plant. There is only one blast furnace operating, not three. All the facilites at the plant are much greater than those that are needed.
We have seen the closure of three perfectly good medium-sized blast furnaces at Clay Lane. They are now redundant. That has resulted in abortive expenditure of£37 million. Those are not all the examples by any means. Let us not blame the workers for everything. There are many others involved in the industry.
Interest charges are seldom, if ever, mentioned. The current loss amounts to£307 million, but£217 million stems from interest charges. No one said "The industry is bankrupt. You will have to take less by way of interest." The only people who have been told to take less are the workers.
Subsidies are another factor. We are told that every British taxpayer pays£30 a year to subsidise the steel workers. That is untrue. It must be remembered that£20 of each£30 goes straight to the moneylenders. It is only the remaining£10 that goes to the steel workers.
There is talk about whether the British steel industry is able to compete. Can we

compete with the Continentals and the Japanese? We can compete if we are allowed to do so on equal terms. It is interesting to consider the subsidies that the German industry receives. There are hidden subsidies, such as maintenance charges. Those subsidies are not shown in the accounts. There are subsidies for apprentices that are not shown. The coking coal subsidy in Germany is£25 a tonne, whereas it is£6 for the United Kingdom steel industry. How can that be said to be fair competition?
The targets that the Government set for the industry on 3 July are totally impossible. They mean that the industry will have to operate at a profit during the 1980–81 financial year. It will have to do so after depreciation and interest charges have been taken into consideration. That is a complete impossibility. That approach, plus the pay offer that was made to the steel workers, was what triggered off the strike.
The workers will face redundancies, and towns will be blighted. There will be massive unemployment in areas and towns that are dependent upon the industry. Towns such as Corby will be blighted, as Jarrow was blighted in the 1930s. The workers will face a pay freeze. The offer of a 2 per cent. increase was nothing but a pay freeze. All those factors are tied up with the Davignon plan. The ultimate aim is to restructure the industry and to phase out excess capacity.
There is excess capacity now, but will that exist in five or 10 years' time? I forecast that by that time we shall have a steel industry that is no longer able to support our manufacturing base. My right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) argued that we did to coal exactly what we are now planning to do to steel. In adopting that approach to coal, our indigenous fuel, we made ourselves reliant on an imported fuel. We know where that led us.
Even more important, where are we to find the skilled work force when the industry has been run down? That work force cannot be produced again overnight. The Government's policy is a disaster for the working people, because they are being asked to carry the can. It is also a disaster for those who work in the industry and the British people as a whole. Unless the workers win the


present struggle, we shall end up without a steel industry in the accepted sense.
No doubt the Government thought, when they took on this union, that it was easy meat. The union had always been co-operative, steel had been stockpiled and the industry was in financial difficulties. But the Government did not reckon with the fact that the steel union would get the support of other unions, and they may have bitten off more than they can chew. I hope that they have.
If the struggle is not won, we shall lose our steel industry and many jobs. To whom will we lose those jobs? We shall lose them to the sharks in the multinationals and the sharks on the Government Benches.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) voices a viewpoint totaly different from mine in that she gives encouragement to the strikers in the hope that they will win. No doubt many hon. Members in the House will put forward contradictory viewpoints. In her speech the hon. Lady made one point that is of central importance to my Front Bench colleagues. Referring to her visit to the picket line, she said that she had gained the impression, from talking to the pickets, that they wanted to know whether the Government would intervene.
The message from my right hon. and hon. colleagues on the Front Bench should make it crystal clear that the Government will not intervene. If there is a suggestion that additional funds can be found, I agree that the strike will drag on and do much more damage than has already occurred.
One of the problems surrounding this dispute is that people try to draw parallels—perhaps only in their minds—between what is happening now and what happened in 1974. The impression seems to be that, provided the dispute continues and the workers become tougher, the Government will come forward with additional finance. But in 1974 the coal industry—I and many other hon. Members said this at the time—wasmerely following the increase in the price of oil imposed by the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, and we faced a strong demand for energy as a result of what happened in 1973. Therefore, the

price of energy inevitably increased. There was a strong market.
On this occasion, the strikers have taken on an employer which, at present, has a very bleak future and which is unable to pay the extra money if it is to sell its product competitively in the world market. For this reason, the offer that has been put on the table by the corporation, and which is regarded by it as being as much as it can afford, should be accepted as precisely that.
The House will know that I have spent many years in the industry. I am now associated with a company that makes melting electrodes. If the industry prices itself out of its existing markets, the investment during the years since the 1950s will have been totally wasted.
The problems facing the industry today are an amalgam of three separate issues that have come into conjunction and created this unhappy situation. The closure programme, wages, and a collapsing market have come together as one issue. On the one hand, they have demoralised people in the industry, and, on the other hand, they have deprived management of any degree of flexibility.
The Government's first essential commitment should be to allow management to manage. No one in the House is competent enough to run the steel industry. It is essential that we, as politicians, allow the management that has been appointed to get on with the job.
The first priority of management is to reduce the capacity of the industry to take account of the collapsed market. It is the view of management that we should be talking in terms of an industry that produces 15 million tonnes per year. With the new plants that are now available to the industry, that output could be expanded, easily and rapidly, to about 20 million tonnes per year should the need arise.
I dislike saying this in the presence of the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins), because he and his constituents bear a dreadful burden at present, but the older plants, even though as separate entities they could make money, now cost the corporation about£250 million per year in overheads. That sort of burden, added to the other problems the industry faces, is one that must, wherever possible, be removed.

Mr. David Watkins: Is not the logic of the argument of the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) that plants should be closed down even when, as the plant at Consett does, they meet the criteria for viability and continuation laid down by the Government? If so, is not that a ludicrous argument?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. He knows that I have great affection for his town and the plant there. I know it well. But the tragedy is that we have built dinosaurs, in a natural desire to re-equip the industry, but those dinosaurs need to be operated at about 80 per cent capacity to break even, let alone make a profit. Consequently, plants such as those in the constituency of the hon. Member for Consett have to be closed down so that the work can be fed into these new investments. I agree that it is a tragedy to see viable units picked off, one at a time, to keep new investment going. This is the logic of "big is beautiful" that we inherited after the war.
I remember going to Brussels and talking to people who had been to Japan and being told that this was the only way to make steel and that we needed great integrated works. We have done that. The result is that when the market disappears one is left with a white elephant on one's hands which costs a fortune in capital interest charges, and plants such as that at Consett have to be closed down to make ends meet.

Mr. Allen McKay: Taking the theory that the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) is putting forward, if there is a reduction in capacity and manpower to what the British Steel Corporation wants, what would the hon. Gentleman suggest if the industry does not break even in 1980–81?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. McKay) has raised a very important point. I do not think that anyone can make the prediction he has asked me to make. If we look at "Prospects for Steel" produced by the corporation in April 1978, we see that it states:
the Board of the Corporation has set management a financial objective of operating on a break-even basis by the end of the financial year 1979–80.

I agree that we are dealing not with an exact science but with forecasting, which, at best, is a fairly doubtful art. But the current philosophy is that we must rid ourselves of the£250 million weight on our balance sheet and try to utilise the new plant as much as we can. That is why the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley), when Secretary of State for Industry, said in 1978:
In present market conditions, the Corporation has substantial over-capacity…neither the Corporation nor the country can afford the cost of the mounting over-capacity that would result from unchanged policies."—[Official Report, 22 March 1978; Vol. 946, c. 1512.]
The right hon. Gentleman saw clearly, as have all Secretaries of State, that if the industry was to break even, or make a profit, we had to reduce capacity to the level of the market. There is no point in producing steel that we cannot sell profitably. We should just have to find the money from elsewhere and we would end up in the sort of situation to which the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) referred.
The aim is to get productive capacity to 15 million tonnes and to have the work force reduced almost overnight to 100,000. That is the second leg of the argument. We are telling those who have given their lives to the industry that what should have been done over a period of 12 years has to be done in a matter of months and that 52,000 people have to be made redundant.
Protests of the sort that we are seeing now are the natural reaction, but there is no alternative to that logic.

Mr. Frank Hooley: Like so many others, the hon. Gentleman talks about the market as though there is a divinely ordained level of world need for steel. That is nonsense. The NEDO report shows that the new capacity in developing countries will not come on stream fast enough to meet their needs. There will be a world market, quite apart from the home market.
The hon. Gentleman's basic argument that there is a fixed market for steel to which we must accommodate ourselves—and I notice that it is always an accommodation downwards—is nonsensical.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I wish that it was not always an accommodation downwards. When I left the Iron and Steel


Federation, the capacity was 26 million tonnes, almost twice the present level, but the best forecasts at the moment are that 15 million tonnes of productive capacity, with the ability to expand by another 5 million tonnes, is probably the right size for the British steel industry.
I agree with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) that there is no single figure. The aim is to produce steel that can be sold competitively in the market. No other criterion can govern the size of the industry.
We hope that the industry will become more productive, but we must be honest and admit that we shall never again be in the big league of steel producers. Even if we get the productivity figure of 183 tonnes per man per year that the chairman of the BSC has mentioned we shall still be in a different league from the Japanese and other producers.
However, I was saddened to see that the chairman of the BSC was quoted in The Times today as saying about the current problems:
I am not even mentioning the Japanese steel industry because they are in a class by themselves.
When one remembers the investment on the North-East Coast, much of which is more modern than any Japanese plant, it is a tragedy that the chairman should have to make that remark. I hope that what he fears will not prove to be the case.
The second argument revolve's around wage levels. I shall not dwell on that because it has been discussed by other hon. Members. We are talking about an offer of 12 per cent. with strings, and the argument between the union and the management is whether the strings should exist. I do not think that the figure that the management believes will eventually be arrived at is much different from what the union hopes to get, but the management wants to see some sort of control over the way that the money is to be paid.
We must face the fact that flexibility, craft with craft, and craft with process, and flexibility over demanning are matters which any management ought to have on the table in bargaining negotiations. If the BSC is pressurised into paying money without a degree of flexibility, the position of those who have jobs in the industry will, in the long run, be under-

mined. Frequently, we shall be keeping people in work who might want to retire or leave and who would not be replaced. We shall find it almost impossible to get down to a work force of 100,000.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Will my hon. Friend make clear that when we talk of flexibility we are talking not only of demanning but of the possibility of transferring people within works? That is often impossible because of the lack of inter-union co-operation.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: My hon. Friend is right. If the strike goes on for another 10 days or more and the private sector is involved, the bulk of the skilled men in the industry will have lost£600 or£700 in wages which may never be recovered. It will certainly take them a long time to get back to where they are at present. My fear is that when the strike ends many of those men will have no jobs to return to. The strike will inevitably increase the temptation for those who use steel to import it and to be completely secure in their second line of supply. I hope that none of those possibilities occurs. It would be a tragedy if any did.
Given the situation facing the industry, those who seek to find a King Canute, whether in the shape of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or anyone else, who can persuade the tide of commercial reality to go away are doing a disservice to everyone in the industry. If we end the strike, we can still go forward with a modern industry and not only hold markets but capture new ones. Going on, to deliver ourselves vicious, self-inflicted wounds, will only hurt everyone connected with the industry.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that Mr. Deputy Speaker made an appeal earlier for 10 minute speeches. It will help if hon. Members are able to make shorter speeches, otherwise many hon. Members will not be called because of lack of time.

Mr. Roy Hughes: I repeat what I said to the Secretary of State earlier, when I indicated that I was deeply shocked that he chose not to mention the savage redundancies that are apparently


to take place at Port Talbot and Llanwern. There are to be 7,000 redundancies at Port Talbot and 4,500 at Llanwern, and my hon. Friends from West Wales are all too well aware that alternative jobs are just not available for those who are to be made redundant. The Secretary of State's attitude was callous and amounted to a dereliction of duty. The steel workers and their families will draw their own conclusions, but I believe that for generations to come the name Joseph will stink in the nostrils of the people of South Wales.
The hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) referred to dinosaurs. We have one at Llanwern which is to be decimated, showing that further inroads are being made into the original strategy of the BSC. The hon. Genleman said that there was to be concentration on those plants, but even sonic of them are to be decimated. It is criminal to adopt that sort of industrial strategy at Llanwern.
Much play has been made of international comparisons, and it is alleged that West Germany produces 220 tonnes per man per year. A number of figures are being bandied about at the present time, and presumably the ones that have been given to me are as good as any others. About 9,000 people are employed at Llanwern, and the weekly tonnage for this year averages 40,000. If one does a bit of simple arithmetic—in other words, divides that 40,000 tonnes by the 9,000 workpeople and multiplies it by the 52 weeks—one comes to a figure of 230 tonnes which is slightly above the German figure. The figure for the work force includes all the ancillary sections—canteen workers, maintenance staff, and so on—so the issue is not quite as simple as some people like to make out.
The essence of the debate is the national steel strike, the first that has taken place in this country for about 54 years. The second feature of it, about which Labour Members have repeatedly complained, is that the Secretary of State is refusing to intervene in the dispute to bring about a solution and a return to work.
We have to ask ourselves how this strike came about. We have been told many times that it started with the obscure offer by the British Steel Corporation of

2 per cent., and one of two conclusions can be drawn about that. It was either deliberately provocative or it was inane. My feeling is that some weeks ago the steel trade unions would have settled for a very modest figure indeed, but after the way in which they have been treated in recent weeks their attitude has hardened.
We were told recently that the rate of inflation was about 17½per cent. It is probably much more now because of all the new increases in the pipeline. There is the 29 per cent. increase on gas, and there are to be substantial increases for electricity. The price of petrol seems to be increasing almost every week, and there have been massive increases in mortgage rates and value added tax. Steel workers and their families have to live in the real world. The increased cost of sending children to school is a big factor in my area. Many children travel in from the countryside to our schools in Newport, and they will be affected by the increased transport costs, let alone the additions for school meals.
We know, too, that there is a worldwide steel crisis. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) said, throughout the world profit in steel is almost non-existent, yet it is at this time that the Secretary of State has chosen to impose the most stringent financial controls on the British Steel Corporation.
Many people are querying the Government's motives. They wonder whether the Government are trying to bring about a confrontation. We know from evidence that a similar attempt was made in the early 1970s with the Post Office workers, and the steel workers, who have been modest in the past and moderate in their demands, may have been considered to be easy pickings.
The fact must be faced that the Government may have miscalculated. Steel workers and miners live in integrated communities. In my area many ex-miners are now steel workers, and when I toured the picket lines at the various plants in the Newport area at the beginning of last week I found, as I said earlier, that attitudes had hardened and that a new, more militant spirit was emerging. It seems to me, therefore, that already the Government's policy is turning moderates into militants. I should not have thought that that was their objective, but that is


what is happening in practice, and in the struggle that lies ahead that solidarity will grow.
I referred earlier to the fact that the Government might be acting according to some predetermined plan, and there has been mention from time to time of the Ridley plan of a year or two ago, for the steel men then were cited as one of the groups that could be safely taken on. We know that many manufacturing firms throughout the country have built up their stocks of steel. One could almost imagine some weeks ago Sir John Methven of the CBI telling his members "Stock up, boys, there is going to be a national steel strike."
If this confrontation has been deliberately sought, as seems likely, all I can say is that it is a despicable action for any Government to take, even this one. As numerous hon. Members have said, this strike is bound to do a lot of damage. The workers lose pay as a result of it, bills mount up and they get into all manner of difficulties. As for the steel industry itself, which is already in a parlous condition, orders could be lost and confidence further undermined. Other industries will suffer. There is British Leyland, which is walking a tightrope at the present time. There is a major washing machine manufacturer in South Wales, Hoover, which could be in difficulties if steel supplies dried up. We have had trouble over tinplate for Metal Box, and so on. And, of course, we all know that the country will suffer very much.

Mr. Adam Butler: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he agrees with the secondary picketing of Metal Box, which is likely to cause the company severe difficulties?

Mr. Hughes: For the steel workers, this is now very much a life-and-death struggle. They feel now that they are striking against the Government. In other words, it is a political strike, and they are adopting an attitude of "no holds barred". Who can say that they are wrong? There is every indication that this dispute could be a long-drawn-out one.
Why does not the Secretary of State intervene to bring about a settlement? He has full powers to do so. Under section 4 of the Iron and Steel Act 1975, for

instance, it is provided that he may give directions
as to the exercise and performance by the Corporation of their functions…which appear to him to affect the national interest.
This strike is more than likely to affect the national interest. All I ask this afternoon is that the Secretary of State should use those powers. We know that in a week or so the private steel industry is likely to come to a stop. What is more, if the Government are not prepared to intervene to bring about a negotiated settlement trade unions everywhere—of coal miners, railwaymen and so on—will decide to back the steel workers. The strike will then become very much a political strike against the Government. I say to the Secretary of State, intervene before it is too late.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: To introduce a little light relief into the debate, may I say that I saw in the newspaper today that it is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's birthday? I wish him many happy returns. I expect that he would have preferred to do something other than speak in this debate on his birthday. He may approve of that part of my speech, but whether he will approve of all of the rest of what I am about to say I am not certain.
I want to deal with the steel industry under two heads: first the strike and then the future plans for the industry. I am certain that it is wrong, automatically or immediately, to buy off a strike. In the past few years we have bought off far too many strikes. When a demand is being made for a wage increase that is too high, there should not be an immediate giving way. Therefore, I do not feel too badly about there being a strike, although I am sorry that the steel workers felt that they had to take action.
Once there is a strike, we have to concentrate on ending it. It is useless for the Government to say that they have no responsibility. Ministers come to the Dispatch Box every day and answer questions about the nationalised industries. Members of Parliament are always told that Ministers have a broad policy responsibility, even if not a day-to-day responsibility. Yesterday there was an announcement about the increase in gas prices. It cannot be right for a Minister


on one day to say that he will increase the price of nationalised gas, that it is his duty to do so, and for another Minister on another day to say that a strike in an industry has nothing to do with him. My right hon. Friend must recognise that there is a Government responsibility.

Mr. Adam Butler: Let us have a complete picture. I shall not attempt to give my hon. Friend the complete picture, but the Government also have a responsibility to the taxpayer.

Mr. Lewis: That is a very potent intervention. I am coming to that matter. If the Government do not accept responsibility for the industry, they are not accepting their responsibility to the community. The community responsibility that is placed on the steel industry and others, and therefore on the Minister, is that in a strike he and the corporation must get the community on their side. How can the Minister help to do that if at the same time he is saying to the country that it has nothing to do with the Government? Whose responsibility is it if it is not finally the Government's responsibility?
I can understand my right hon. Friend saying that he is the paymaster, the man who has to find the money. He is not entirely, because it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the end of the day, who has to do that. The Minister may not want to be in a position where he can be pressed to find more funds immediately. But that does not apply to the Government as a whole.
Are the Government trying to make the Secretary of State for Employment a eunuch? Has he to sit there and do nothing and say nothing? I hope he is doing something in private and that soon he will be doing something in public. In all Governments in recent years, the Secretary of State for Employment, because of the spread of nationalised industries, has had to take second place to Ministers in charge of nationalised industries. Can anyone imagine that Ernest Brown, who was Minister of Labour when I was a young man, would have taken that attitude or would have accepted it if he had been told in the Cabinet that he could do very little? Can anyone imagine that Mr. Ernest Bevin would have allowed himself to have been in that position?

The sooner that we realise that a Secretary of State for Employment has to be allowed to carry out his duties, the better.
The Secretary of State for Industry told me recently in answer to a question that ACAS was independent. It is no more independent of the Department of Employment than is the Manpower Commission. There is an overall responsibility to the Minister. I understand that an ACAS report on the steel strike has just been published. I hope that the Secretary of State for Employment will receive a copy of it and that it will be available to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. I hope also that both those Ministers and the Cabinet will consider the report to see what opportunities it provides for further negotiation between the two sides.
My right hon. Friend said that there was only a narrow margin between management and the unions; it was not the amount that was in question but whether the amount came out of productivity. I do not argue against that. I want some realism to be shown. Never in recent years, when a productivity deal has been sought, has it been obtained in full. On many occasions there has been no spurious productivity deal. But if, in this case, there is a chance of getting some of the productivity deal, not necessarily all of it, my right hon. Friend should take the chance and settle. I hope that the unions will be realistic enough to recognise this and will make clear to their members that there must be some productivity content in the settlement, in their own interest and in the interest of the industry. Only from increased productivity can real money increases be obtained.
In the past few months in the public sector there have been rises of 24 per cent. for the nurses and 22 per cent. for the miners. The miners' productivity record is not as good as that of the steel industry in recent years. In local government there has just been a settlement of 14 per cent. in which there is no productivity element. That is not so different from the 12 to 14 per cent. which is being discussed at the moment for the steel workers. We have just heard that national earnings have gone up 19·2 per cent., so a 12 to 14 per cent. settlement in the steel industry would be worth having.
In 1974 we missed the boat with the miners when we could have settled. At


that time I made strong private representations, as did some of my hon. Friends. Now I am a little more grey-haired and do not make private representations without making public representations, because otherwise they do not get me anywhere.
My right hon. Friend may think that it is good to be a politically strong man, but if the strength of Samson brings down the pillars of the whole temple what good is there in being a strong man? Our engineering industry depends on steel. The engineering industry has already had one blow this year—the strike which went on for weeks—and it cannot take another for long. We shall destroy our manufacturing base if we allow this strike to carry on for weeks. Some people may feel that we have done something. I do not know what that something will be, other than our being brought nearer to disaster.
How are we to get more cash for the industry as a whole? The Government have already accepted that if it included a productivity deal, a 12 per cent. increase could be conceded. That goes beyond the cash limits, but such an increase would not affect the steel industry for at least six months. The industry will not run into trouble until it has paid such wage increases for some time.
The Labour Party suggested that the steel industry should undergo a capital reorganisation when it had come into profit. I give my right hon. Friends the opportunity to do better than that. They should reorganise the steel industry's capital before it comes into profit. It does not make sense to close down plants and not reorganise the industry's capital. It is good free enterprise doctrine, in any case, to reorganise capital. If a company gets into trouble in the City of London, the value of that company's shares is likely to be halved. It has happened many times, and in the end the shareholders get a better return on the half value of their shares than they would have done on the original shares.
I know that we are discussing loan capital, not equity capital. But such a write-down scheme would make money available because less would have to be paid out in interest. There are plenty of precedents for such a reorganisation. We did it with the coal industry and

the railways. Unhappily, we have had to do it with many nationalised industries. That does not say much for nationalisation.
Finally, there should not be such a massive steel cutback as has been proposed. We may need the steel industry, as we needed the shipbuilding industry during the war. We ought to be prepared to put some of the industry into mothballs rather than have a total closure. We should close some of it down but be ready, when the time comes, to open it up again. That does not mean that there should not be permanent closures. There should be a balance struck on timing and on plant redundancies between the considerable cutbacks that are proposed and the possible needs of the future.

Mr. Cyril Smith: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis). I declare an interest as managing director of a company that uses steel. I thought that I would be making the first plea in this debate on behalf of consumers. However, the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford pre-empted my plea by making a similar plea.
The Government should understand that this dispute does not merely affect steel workers and the British Steel Corporation. It affects thousands of engineering companies, many of which are small. We have been given to understand that the Government wish to champion the cause of small companies. I do not know what has happened in the big companies, though I have been intrigued by the comments on the great stockpiling of steel that has taken place. As someone involved in a small company, I know that there is no way in which we could have afforded to stockpile steel for months in advance in anticipation of a steel strike and in the hope of beating it.
The Government had better understand that if they do not do something to settle the strike shortly not only the British steel industry but large sections of British industry outside steel will be adversely affected. If a company such as mine which supplies components to many other companies is unable to supply those other companies, they will go under as well. That would happen even if those other companies were not direct consumers of steel.
I hope, therefore, that the Government clearly understand the importance of achieving an early settlement. The Government must not stand by in the role of a redundant referee ignoring the fact that they themselves have set the rules of the contest while the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Industry can be heard cheeering on the management of BSC.
It is the view of the leader of the Liberal Party and of many of us in Opposition that the country needs far clearer economic planning than it is currently getting. We appear to be floating along on an economic cloud hoping that everything will come right in our pursuit of some doctrine or theory which might be known as the "Joseph theory adopted by Thatcher".
The country appears to be in exactly the situation it was in in 1978–79, lacking the kind of leadership that would show the country where it is going and how it is to get there. It is not sufficient for leadership to be expressed in platitudes which tell us we cannot have this or that. It will take more than platitudes to persuade the country that it is getting the kind of leadership to which it believes it is entitled.
To be fair. the Labour Government told the steel industry that it must break even in 1979. When the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) spoke for the Opposition today, I intended to intervene. However, he made my point and my intervention was unnecessary. When the Labour Government told the British Steel Corporation to break even by 1979, what was the rate of inflation then? Furthermore, when this Government told the BSC that it must break even by March 1980, what was the rate of inflation then? The facts need to be stated. Since both those declarations were made, the rate of inflation has galloped upwards and forwards at an alarming rate and will soon approach 20 per cent.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is the hon. Member suggesting that the increase in the rate of inflation diminishes the requirement for the British Steel Corporation to decrease the public sector borrowing requirement?

Mr. Smith: I argue that it certainly affects the period in which that argument

should be applied. When the Labour Government required the BSC to break even, inflation was running at 8½per cent. to 9 per cent. I strongly submit that that rate of inflation is material to the argument.

Mr. John Silkin: I am interested in the hon. Member's argument. Will he take on board the fact that—as I tried to make clear from the steel sector working party's report—no other European country expects its steel producers to break even until at least the end of 1981?

Mr. Smith: I am grateful for that intervention. The right hon. Gentleman quoted that relevant factor in his capable speech today. It was a better speech than we heard from the Government. I do not always take that view, but I certainly took it today. The Government must realise that this galloping rate of inflation puts a tremendous burden on the finances of the British Steel Corporation, just as it does on the finances of any other industry. Interest rates also have their impact. Vast sums are being paid by the BSC in interest rates. Interest rates affect prices and cash flows. That means that it is more difficult, within a given period, for an industry to break even than if those economic factors did not apply.

Mr. Adam Butler: How does the hon. Member reconcile his argument that the Government should put in more taxpayers' money, and therefore increase borrowing, with his desire to reduce interest rates?

Mr. Smith: I hope to persuade the House that those factors are compatible and that there is another way of tackling the problem.
It is common sense for any industry at least to break even, and the steel industry is no exception. The argument is about at what speed an industry should be expected to break even. It is difficult to understand why the British steel industry should be expected to break even at a greater pace and within a shorter period than the steel industries in other countries.
Productivity must be increased. There is no point in producing something which cannot be sold. There is no point in a consumer buying at a higher price than is necessary. By the same taken, the


labour force must be reduced substantially. The argument is about the time it takes for those changes to occur.
I do not often agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). He is due to address my Rotary club, and I have declined to attend. However, I agreed with him when he said that one cannot expect the men in the steel industry to accept increases which are not reasonably compatible with the rise in the cost of living. I am appalled by the way in which the British Steel Corporation management has handled the negotiations. I cannot understand what the management representative was thinking of when he went to the negotiating table with an offer of 2 per cent. It would have been better for him to offer nothing on the ground that the industry was bankrupt and could not afford anything. Whoever was daft and stupid enough to offer 2 per cent. should be sacked. No man can be expected to accept 2 per cent., or even 8 per cent.
We must reach a settlement which reflects all the conditions to which I have referred. I accept that the industry is in a bad way and that the settlement cannot be in line with the national average increase. The steel workers must also accept that. However, it is ridiculous to ask the workers to accept 2 per cent., or even 8 per cent., when the national average is about 19 per cent.
I hope that we can look at the problem realistically. The situation has worsened, because within days of the 2 per cent. offer being made it was increased to 8 per cent. That showed how ludicrous, stupid and silly was the original offer.

Mr. Coleman: Is the hon. Member aware that when the 8 per cent. offer was made the original 2 per cent. in new money was withdrawn?

Mr. Smith: I am aware of that, and that is why I hope that somebody will do something about the idiot responsible for the negotiations on behalf of the British Steel Corporation.
The BSC should start to think of making an offer of between 12 per cent. and 14 per cent., with or without Government intervention. We should create a partnership between the management and the unions. Such a partnership cannot be created by attaching impossible

conditions to wage settlements. Partnerships are created by showing employees in an industry that we have confidence in them that they will honestly attempt to achieve the target set for them. It may be argued that targets set in earlier negotiations were not achieved. However, if the British steel industry is to have a future it must have a new beginning. That means that we must have the co-operation of the work force. Somebody should have the sense to see that new wage deals might mark the commencement of a new deal for British steel instead of an ending.

Mr. Adam Butler: The hon. Member said that he is a steel consumer. Is he prepared to pay higher prices for British steel to pay for the higher wages which he recommends?

Mr. Smith: I would be an idiot not to understand that if the person supplying me has to pay more wages to make a product I shall have to pay more for that product when he sells it to me. Of course I understand that.

Mr. Michael Brown: If that is so, surely the consumer of steel will try to obtain steel at a cheaper price from other sources.

Mr. Smith: People will not pay a higher price than they need to pay for steel. That is one of the factors that the union must take into account when understanding that it cannot achieve as much as the national average increase in wages. The Government should tell the British Steel Corporation to settle at between 12 per cent. and 14 per cent., without strings, and guarantee that if increased productivity is not achieved they will pay for the difference between an 8 per cent. and a 14 per cent. settlement.
The Government must consider that proposition and my plea for a new attitude. They must show the unions that they are prepared to trust them to have a go at achieving increased productivity. They must prove that trust by providing financial backing.
The Minister asked whether I am suggesting that the British taxpayer should pay more. In relation to nationalised industries, the Government resemble a holding company. It is not unusual for a holding company to set the losses of


one company against the profits of another.
Yesterday the Government announced a tax on old people keeping warm. They announced that the price of gas is to be increased this year by almost 30 per cent., with further increases each succeeding year. The increase is in excess of that required by the British Gas Corporation. Increases in the price of electricity have also been announced. A massive profit will be earned by the gas industry. The British Gas Corporation has not sought that profit and the Government probably did not take it into account in their last Budget calculations. Why could not the profits of one nationalised industry be set off against the losses of another?

Mr. Adam Butler: Mr. Adam Butler rose—

Mr. Smith: I shall not give way. I know what the Minister of State will say. He will say that the taxpayer will have to find the money that he would not have had to find if he had recouped the gain. But the taxpayer will have to pay those profits anyway. That has already been decided. He has no option. The charges will take place. It is not an extra tax that is being placed on the taxpayer. In view of that, the only argument is about how they are used.

Mr. Butler: I shall give the hon. Gentleman the facts. If the profits of one industry are offset against the losses of another, in 1980–81 we shall still have an external financing limit—that is to say cash limits—for the nationalised industries of about£2·7 billion.

Mr. Smith: There is nothing divine about that. The amount of money involved is minimal compared with the vastly excessive profits that will be dragged out of the British taxpayer—certainly the consumers of gas and electricity. Since the Government are in the position of a holding company, it would not be improper for a Government who believe in free enterprise to use the principles of free enterprise in their attitude to the finances of British industry.
The strike must be settled quickly. It must be settled in a manner which is fair and honourable to all concerned. The record of the British steel worker is a proud and good one. That should be taken into account by the Government

in their settlement plan. I plead that common sense should prevail. The Government should get away from their inflexible attitude of monetarist policies and the attitude that nothing shall shake them from their pursuit of them.
There are times when Governments have to intervene. The time is when Britain faces a situation which could bring to a halt virtually the whole of our manufacturing industry. If the Government do not have a role and a responsibility to intervene at that point in history, I fail to understand their role and motivation.

Mr. David Crouch: We have listened to speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith). Both hon. Members have made a vast and immense contribution to the debate. I do not mean that in a jocular sense.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford said that he did not feel that there was much to be gained from criticising his own Front Bench in the corridors of power. In my experience, there is not much to be gained from criticising it in this place either. He said that as yet he did not have many grey hairs, but I bear witness to the fact that one can get grey hairs by doing what I am about to do. My hon. Friend made an excellent speech. He approached the problem as a politician and dealt with it in all its realities. He did not confine himself to dealing with it solely as a business man, and he is a very successful one.
The hon. Member for Rochdale, who speaks for the Liberal Party, is a successful manufacturer, with a real interest in his business. He was able to use his experience of dealing with production, buying and selling, and labour relations, and combine that with his skill as a politician. Above all, we must speak here as politicians. We can add to our skills as politicians over a wider breadth than just a knowledge of trade unionism or of industry or commerce. We must use our responsibilities as Members of Parliament.
The Secretary of State's statement on the steel industry on Monday was valuable. He gave an admirable background to the events leading up to the strike. He


reminded us of the agreement which existed four years ago between the British Steel Corporation and the TUC steel committee. He stated succinctly that the steel industry had to be rationalised. That had been agreed by the TUC. It had to be turned into a profitable, high-wage, high-productivity industry. My right hon. Friend said that during the last five years investment by the Government and by the industry itself, to the tune of£2¼billion, had been poured into the industry. The British Steel Corporation has been modernised, but it is not yet efficient.
I do not disagree with my right hon. Friend's clear summary. He said that redundancies are now required and that 50,000 men must be lost from the industry. Fifty thousand men lost to the industry may mean that number lost in life itself. I have seen that happen in the coal industry. In my constituency I have spoken to men who have talked about being put on the slag heap at 50. No economist or politician will persuade them that it is all part of the grand economic plan. There is a certain amount of dismay amongst them.
As I have said before, when we contemplate economic plans, Government plans or corporation plans involving rationalisation of an industry which involve men losing their jobs, redundancy payment is not the whole answer. We have a wider responsibility. It is a social upheaval in some quarters of the country of earthquake proportions. It is, indeed, a tragedy. It is a body blow to any work force. Nevertheless, however tragic, however big and however awful it will still happen. Redundancies are one side of the question. That is one body blow to take. But some people cannot take that body blow and might react to it.
I wonder how many of my colleagues in the House have been out of work and been unable to get a job. I am one of those who have, and it is etched on my mind. It must sometimes show that it is etched on my mind. I know what it is like to be out of work. I can never see an unemployed person without sympathising with him and realising that I should not be a politician if I did not have a duty to help him.
I do not wish to introduce too much emotion into a debate which has been

fairly clear of emotion. Hon. Members have sought to introduce a solution to a tragedy—the steel strike—which is looking us in the face and which could become much worse. One body blow is that of redundancy. The other is that of inflation and the pay award that is being offered to the steel workers.
My right hon. Friend, who is an honest man, said that the British Steel Corporation is bankrupt. He is right. The corporation cannot afford to pay more than 2 per cent. The offer was raised to 8 per cent. and then to 12 per cent. with productivity strings. That was fair enough. However, I should not have done it that way. I regard that as ineptitude. If I were still active in a large corporation, as I once was, I should not have expected to see persons who made such offers, and who took such an approach to a key issue, still doing their jobs. They would have been retired early.
The Iron and Steel Trades Confederation will not accept this final offer, and we must ask why. I do not yet know. I have not had an opportunity to talk to Mr. Bill Sirs. I want to know that my Government have sought that opportunity—I understand that today they have sought such an opportunity—because I want to know what is the argument of Mr. Sirs and his members.
There has never been a clean strike, and as days go by strikes get dirtier. We hear all the horror stories about anarchists and Trotskyists who are coming out of their cells to make capital out of a strike that gets dirtier day by day.
But there was a reason why, on the first day, the offer was turned down. We understand from Mr. Sirs' statement that he did not accept the BSC's measurements on productivity. I have heard him talk about it on the radio. The unions believe that the BSC may have some other figures which can be played around with, if I may use that phrase. We have heard about the interest payments of£188 million a year. We have heard about the higher cost to the BSC in a year as a result of wing British coal—£135 million. These are charges on the industry. They are figures taken into account when considering the wage award that can be made at a time when inflation is running at 18 per cent. I am being very calm about


this. I am throwing in a few figures because there are two sides of the argument, and I do not care which side of the Chamber they come from.
The workers, so I understand, do not feel that they should bear the cost of the plant closures, or at least they feel that this cost should be taken out of the pay calculations with which they are being confronted. They feel that much of BSC's investment has been a mistake. They are right, of course. We all know that much of it has been a mistake. We know that some of it is a false investment and that the management calculation of the market was wrong. Hence, BSC must be contracted still further to get the productivity that is being sought, quite rightly, by the Government and by the BSC. I do not dispute the arguments that I hear about the need for productivity, so that we can earn more, sell more and be more competitive and so that eventually we can afford very much higher wages.
The workers have also had their failures, although not so much in terms of false estimates. The productivity has not been there. We know that productivity has increased a little and that at present the steel industry is doing better than the coal industry. There has been absenteeism. There have been disputes on demarcations. There have been un-official disputes.
My right hon. Friend has, with great persistence, told us that last year the losses of the British Steel Corporation were equal to£1,800 per man in the industry. He then argued, with cool logic, that therefore£1,800 of the pay of the steel workers has to be made up by£1,800in taxation from the other workers in the country. It is cool logic, but it is too cool by half for me. It really is. I cannot accept it.
I was always taught that there were no bad soldiers, just bad officers.

Mr. Hooley: The£1,800 argument is not even logical, because the loss cannot be set off merely against labour charges. It has to be set off against labour, raw materials and capital.

Mr. Crouch: I understand. My logic is not so cool that I would not be able to pursue even my own argument on it, but I think that I have made my point.
The workers in the steel industry are on strike, in a hopeless cause, I think, but they feeel misused. I have met them, although I do not sit for a steel constituency. It was the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) who said that we are all concerned with steel, whether or not we use it. It is the bedrock of British industry.
Steel workers come to see Members of Parliament. I have seen them, and I have been very impressed by them. I have never met such moderate, encouraging workers. I should like to be able to work with them, because they encourage one. Therefore, I feel that we must almost bend over backwards to see what has gone wrong. Why are they feeling misused? Why are they bruised? Why are they feeling disillusioned? Why—perhaps worst of all—is their morale low? That is the worst thing that can happen to an army.
I remember being told that we lost Singapore not because the guns were pointing the wrong way but because British morale had gone to rock bottom. I am worried now that in the steel industry morale should be so low. No wonder they are on strike. They feel that their backs are to the wall, and they think that there is nothing left for them. Something, therefore, is wrong.
The Government have said that they will not intervene. I accept that the Government should not intervene in pay negotiations. I have accepted that principle in recent years. That is the job of management and unions together. But I would argue that there is a case for an intervention now, if only to find out the real causes of the trouble, which are much wider than just a pay dispute. Let us have intervention soon, before there is even greater disturbance in the economy.

Mr. Adam Butler: That is what ACAS is doing. It is trying to establish—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend has made a point that is well worth answering immediately. The point that I seek to put to him is that this is what ACAS is doing at the moment. It is trying to establish what the problems are. One of its roles is to consider this. Will my hon. Friend leave it to ACAS?

Mr. Crouch: I have the highest regard for ACAS and have always supported it through thick and thin. I would strengthen


ACAS. But this dispute has now been lifted into another area.
I have already talked about low morale. I am aware of the concern of the public over what is happening. In this Chamber we hear hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Rochdale, talking about the problems that their businesses face. We heard the hon. Gentleman say that he cannot afford to stockpile steel, and so on. We hear what is said by the small business man. We know, therefore, that there is great concern in all sectors of the community, and not least among the general public. There is great concern also among the workers in the industry who are on strike. I believe that ACAS can do the job but that we have reached a stage when it needs help from above. The Government should not stand aside now.
The dispute is not just about pay. Pay is crucial, of course, at a time of high inflation, and especially so when steel workers see high pay awards being realised by other workers around them. They see such pay awards being made in areas in which productivity does not even arise. Rationalisation and redundancy mean social upheaval. As I said earlier, it is happening on a tremendous scale in certain steel towns. It is here that the Government have a role to play, quite apart from any economic argument.
Where there is social upheaval and change, there is a need for retraining and for a new infrastructure. There is a requirement for new jobs and new factories. I saw this in Wales at the end of the last war, with the rundown of the coal industry. It cannot be, it must not be, it should never be, left to industry and management alone to do this. This is not the role of a nationalised industry. This is the Government's role. How to face the social problems caused by an upheaval such as this is a matter that goes much wider than the role of the appointed members of a nationalised board.
I am not advocating any climbdown by the Government—I am very glad to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State back in his place—but perhaps there could be a slowdown in regard to the redundancies that seem to be required. There should be a reappraisal. Let the Government get together with both sides and talk about it. I believe that when

the issues are put to them in this way we shall find that we are dealing with rational men. Above all, I want the Government to talk to the men in the industry. There is so much that needs to be done. We have to see that we do it, and that we do it properly.
I could not help thinking of Lord Robens and the task that he faced over 10 years in the coal industry. I checked on my facts last night, and I was staggered by what I found. In 1960, when he went to the coal industry, there were 602,000 men on the rolls of the collieries of this country. Eight years later there were only 285,000—without a strike. In 1968 alone, 25,000 men were made redundant. In his book "Ten Year Stint", Lord Robens wrote:
The success of the industry cannot be measured just in terms of productivity or profit and loss, but much more in the handling of a vast army of men facing redundancy and unemployment.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—and he is a friend, because we knew each other before I came into the House and I have a high regard for him—has expounded a harsh policy that is based on economic reality and on market pressures. I do not object to that and I accept the argument that the facts relating to productivity and profitability are real. However, there is another side to my right hon. Friend. He does not really need reminding of it. He is a man of understanding and of great sensitivity and compassion. I remember when he was talked of as the "big spender". As a Tory, I remember how we stumped the country, proud to proclaim that we had this man in our team who spent so much on the social services and—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Member's recollections, but does he recall that Mr. Speaker recently made an appeal for 10-minute speeches?

Mr. Crouch: I promise you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have reached my last sentence. We need the mind of my right hon. Friend on the economic problems, but we need his heart as well to deal with the social problems that they throw up.

Mr. Ifor Davies: The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) has made a realistic speech. I regret that


the Secretary of State for Industry was not—obviously for good reasons—in his place to hear some of the speeches made by Conservative Members. The first and essential priority, which is the essence of the debate, is to settle the steel strike. It is not a strike that affects only steel workers but one that affects all sections of the community. That point has been raised by many hon. Members.
The Secretary of State defends his policy of non-intervention by claiming that he is not the management. But in his speech on 13 December he said:
I am not the management—[Interruption.] No, I am the representative for the time being of the owners of the industry."—[Official Report, 13 December 1979; Vol. 975, c. 1578.]
So be it. As a representative of the owners of that industry, I urge him in the light of the speeches that we have heard to inject a spirit of good will into the dispute at so crucial a stage. As the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) mentioned, the Secretary of State should, as a first step, adopt a more flexible financial break-even timetable to enable the BSC to fulfil its obligation.
The question before the House concerns not merely the steel industry but the whole of our economic and industrial future, because steel lies at the heart of all our economic activities. In particular, the coal and tinplate industries within my constituency are dependent on steel. It is no exaggeration to say that no aspect of our economic life will be left unaffected. We face a very grave threat to our economic well-being as a nation, and the indifference of the Government is a dereliction of their duty to the country. For the Government to pretend that the issue of wages and redundancies is a local matter for the BSC is a serious abnegation of responsibility, not only because they are owner and banker but because the Government and the taxpayer could be involved to the extent of hundreds of millions of pounds.
The Government persist in pretending that it is a balance sheet problem for the British Steel Corporation to solve, but the effects of redundancy pay, unemployment benefits, losses of tax revenue and regional development programmes could greatly affect the country's balance sheet. The Government's instruction to the BSC to break even within a short time limit

is the most emphatic intervention in the corporation's affairs. It is that instruction that has contributed towards the present crisis. Therefore, the Government cannot excuse themselves by standing aside from the very dispute that they helped to create.
Sooner or later the Government will have to take more positive and realistic action before irreparable damage is done to the whole of British Industry. Their decision depends upon how anxious they are to preserve steel-making in Britain. It also depends on how the Government regard steel workers in comparison with other workers in the public sector. That point was brought home by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) in his realistic and fair speech.
The Government should ask themselves the important question why steel workers, whose organisation has been a byword of moderation over the years, should suddenly change overnight from a small army of moderates to a small army of militants. I believe that that point was made earlier but I have repeated it. The short answer is that the workers feel that they are being asked to carry an unfair share of the steel industry's difficulties and that they have paid for that share with many sacrifices. Those workers have paid, for example, through their co-operation over plant closures and loss of jobs, and through an investment strategy to which they were not party and which, with hindsight, appears grossly over-optimistic.
I can recall a number of steelworks closing in my own constituency under the pretext of rationalisation. I can recall the call for demanning in the interests of greater efficiency and competition. That is not a new word but an old one. There is no body of workers that has co-operated more fully on these important issues than the steel workers.
For example, at Port Talbot there is a work force that extends throughout West Glamorgan and West Wales. The manpower at Port Talbot has, in recent years, fallen from 17,000 to its present total of about 12,000. I was closely involved in the many deputations from the West Wales steel action committee which sought new investment in Port Talbot. I can testify to the readiness of steel workers to work in full co-operation with the BSC in facing all its problems. It is fully realised that we are


in the midst of a world steel recession, but the BSC programme has varied from extreme optimism to exaggerated pessimism. The steel dispute is becoming bogged down with all manner of statistics and complex percentages which are challenged from day to day.
We have already heard references to the NEDC iron and steel report of 1980. It says:
Labour productivity has now risen 16 per cent. since 1975".
It then gives a warning:
International comparisons of labour productivity are open to many criticisms—differing definitions of the industry—the extent to which sub-contractors are used, etc.
This is an authoritative NEDC report that warns us to beware of comparative statistics.
I take note of the appeal to be brief, but I wish to mention one figure. The new estimate concerning BSC is for a capacity of 15 million tonnes a year. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition mentioned earlier today that he hoped that that fact would be brought out, but that is only BSC's estimate of its share of a much larger market. An output of 15 million tonnes would barely support the domestic demand and would not put us in a position to respond when world demand picks up, as I am confident that it must. It would be disastrous to reduce capacity to such an extent that it would jeopardise our chances of meeting a rising market. It is therefore essential to protect our capacity. In the light of the investment of millions of pounds in the steel industry, there is every reason to safeguard modern plants such as Port Talbot and Llanwern so that they can cope with the expansion when it comes.
I conclude by re-emphasising that the urgent issue before us is the settlement of the strike. On 13 December 1979 the Secretary of State said:
the Government have responsibility for doing what is practicable to remedy the social consequences of industrial change"—[Official Report, 13 December 1979; Vol. 975, c. 1579.]
The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) was also frank enough to admit that in his speech, and I am glad that the Secretary of State is indicating assent. He should accept his own challenge. At this juncture he could go a long way towards dealing with the consequences of the industrial changes that we are

facing, especially in the steel industry, and enter into a meaningful discussion with both sides. In recent hours Mr. Bill Sirs has offered an olive branch. The Secretary of State could help to establish industrial peace in an industry that deserves better treatment from the Government.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I agree with the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Davies) that it is a tragedy that workers so conscientious, a union so moderate and a leader so responsible as Mr. Sirs should have got themselves into a strike for a pay claim which the employer, being bankrupt, cannot possibly meet and the result of which can only be to destroy jobs and diminish the earnings of those employed in the industry. The same union, however, is negotiating constructively the new manning levels at Shotton and, no doubt, in South Wales which will enable those works, after the strike, to operate competitively.
It is a tragedy without a hero and without a villain. In this version of Hamlet there is no King Claudius, but there are Rosencrantzes and Guildensterns lurking in the wings—those seeking to extend the strike to the private sector, where there is no wage dispute between employers and employees.
In North Wales terms, because Shotton must be wrecked, Brymbo must also be wrecked. In the Welsh TUC there are those—perhaps the busiest—who are seeking to politicise the strike and turn it into a challenge to the Government and the industrial policies that they were elected to carry through.
In view of the interesting speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) and Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis), I must make it plain, that, although I am a member of the interventionist wing of the Tory Party and supported the industrial policies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sid-cup (Mr. Heath), I have no hesitation, although a great deal of sadness, in supporting the Government's present industrial policies, and the Conservative Party as a whole is closely united in that.
We believe, sadly, that it is no longer possible to have open-ended subsidies in order to keep non-competitive industries going. We say that being only too well aware of the consequencies for whole


sections of British industry and those employed in them. It is better to have amputation without anaesthetic than spreading gangrene.
The job losses resulting from the withdrawal of tax-financed subsidies may be—and I freely admit that they are—politically unacceptable, but, alas, they are economically inevitable. The laws of politics can be made to bend but those of economics cannot. The Labour Party knows that, and many Labour Members will say it in private, although not one will say it in public.
The Labour Party's role in this tragedy is that of Queen Gertrude—guilty silence and complicity in wrongdoing. Above all, its role is complicity in the fostering of the ancient myth, as false, dangerous and obsolete as human sacrifice, that a worker owes to his union a loyalty that transcends his interests, the well-being of his fellow citizens and even common human decency. It is the unthinking acceptance of that myth that has led reasonable men and women into action that cannot possibly benefit them, which will damage the interests of their fellow workers in other industries and will be increasingly difficult to sustain at the cost of ever more flagrant affronts to common human decency.
Must this strike be allowed to run on to its bitter end, to the inevitable collapse after two, three, four, five or six weeks of pointless heroic existence on those freezing picket lines? I have no doubt that, had a democratic vote been taken at the beginning of the strike, there would have been an overwhelming "No". I have no doubt that if another vote was taken in a month or so, it would be to call off the strike. Equally, if the vote was taken now, it would probably be a vote for continuing the strike, because at this stage attitudes have hardened.
In theory it is right to leave the matter to the board of British Steel to sort out. The trouble is that the board is no longer credible, due partly to the way in which it has been treated by successive Governments but also, I must say, to the maladroit way in which it handled the pay round at the opening stages.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry may not be the union's pin-up boy. He has an awkward in-

sistence on telling plain, unvarnished truths—his taste for that perhaps amounts to a disease—but at least he has no problem of credibility. He has made it plain that there can be no more money on the table. Is not the problem now to convince the unions that that is so?
Might it therefore not be worth while for my right hon. Friend, perhaps flanked by the Secretary of State for Employment—as it were, the sugar on the pill—to ask Mr. Bill Sirs to come and see him? He would have not merely to say that the door is open but positively invite him to come and see him. He could tell him once and for all that there is no more money for pay rises beyond what the industry can produce by more production and more profitable output. He could then see, sympathically with Mr. Sirs, what can be done to get him and his union off the hook.
Perhaps the Government owe that one further effort to the steel men. Like the other workers in this country, they have never been clearly told, even by Ministers in this Government, that no one can hope to maintain, still less improve, his standard of living in inflationary, uncompetitive Britain unless he makes a direct contribution to curbing inflation and making his own industry competitive.
Nothing in the debate has been more depressing than listening to the spokesman of the Liberal Party, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), giving his prescription for dealing with Britain's problems, which was merely to pour more money into uncompetitive industries.

Mr. John Morris: I shall be brief.
At this juncture the paramount need, certainly for all of us with steel constituencies and, I would have thought, across the board, is to ask ourselves how the strike can be ended. On the one hand, we have the whole of the public sector industry involved, which is led by one of the most moderate unions in the land. Strike action has not been taken lightly. Therefore, we must ask why a highly responsible leadership has been driven to despair. At this stage, how can the dispute be ended? Do the Government have any ideas for ending it? Those are the questions to which I hoped the Secretary of State would address himself in his brief opening remarks.
On the other hand, there are management problems. If we ask anybody with experience of industrial relations, he will tell us that the 2 per cent. approach had the finesse of an elephant with four right feet. The management are the prisoners of the Government, shackled by the need to break even on a ridiculous and unattainable time scale, as some of my hon. Friends and myself told the chairman of BSC last July when he maintained that it was achievable. The tragedy today is that, if BSC is asked when it will break even, it cannot say. That is the reality. It is a ship sailing on a course without knowing its destination. What it does know is that there will be many casualties on the way. Therefore, the industry is shackled by the need that it cannot give away what the Secretary of State calls taxpayers' money without his consent. There are two immovable forces.
One matter that I should like to make abundantly clear to the right hon. Gentleman—unless he is aware of it already—is that the steel workers cannot be starved out. The sooner that is realised, the better. The Government are the paymasters and the bank managers and, at some stage, whether they like it or not, they will have to intervene. The question concerns the timing and the manner.
Perhaps the Minister who replies to the debate will tell us whether any contingency plans have been made by the Government for intervening. Have the Government thought of the possibility—indeed, the inevitability—of the need to intervene at some stage? I shall not opine about the machinery, whether it is by a court of inquiry, arbitration, an inquiry or even a cosy chat with a Minister, but I find it odd, as the right hon. Gentleman revealed to the House last Monday, that he has had discussions with the corporation but that at no stage have there been discussions with the leadership of the unions. Instead, we have been told by the Secretary of State and by the Prime Minister—although the right hon. Lady is not as close to the matter as is the right hon. Gentleman and I forgive her for that, if for nothing else—with parrot-like repetition, about the one-sided facts. So far, the Secretary of State has not been inclined to provide an opportunity to call in the leadership of the unions and ask those moderate unions

what is the difficulty and why the strike is being maintained.
At some stage, whether the right hon. Gentleman likes it or not, before all the country's industry is affected—because we are discussing not only the problems of the public sector steel industry but the whole of British industry, which will be affected sooner rather than later—he will have to take steps to intervene. As I told the House on Monday, and I hope it will forgive the repetition, I find it illogical and inconsistent that, on the one hand, there is massive intervention by the insistence of the bank manager of the industry that it should break even—there could be no greater intervention than that—and yet, on the other, the industry is deprived of resources. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the industry cannot act without his consent and without resources from him.
I find it odd that the remainder of the BSC proposals for Port Talbot and Llanwern that were announced shortly before the debate started and which were contained in a document circulated to hon. Members by BSC should be totally ignored by the Secretary of State. Those proposals will affect 11,000 workers in Port Talbot and Llanwern and thousands of workers in the coal industry, without taking into account the cumulative factor of a whole range of other people. The whole of South Wales will be a distressed area if the proposals go ahead. When such an announcement is made, the right hon. Gentleman owes the House the privilege of a passing reference to the problem. Or do not 11,000 men count one iota in the minds of the Government and the Secretary of State?
To the surprise of the whole House, the right hon. Gentleman sat down—totally unexpectedly—without mentioning the problem. To one man, those proposals mean 100 per cent. unemployment. To 11,000 people, they mean 11,000 per cent. unemployment when it is all added up. Although the view has been expressed that of all the alternatives this was the least horrific, the tragedy lies in the time scale that is to be followed on the insistence of the Government about the break-even point.
Everyone in the industry and in South Wales knows that there is no possibility for the Welsh Office, the Department of


Industry, BSC or anybody else to provide the alternative employment that will be required by August. That is the time scale that has been imposed. For the moment, the Secretary of State is the steward of this great industry—indeed, he is steward for a good part of British industry. I hope that he will recognise that, apart from the interests of the taxpayer, there is a wider interest—that of the whole nation. There could be no greater tragedy than to allow a great industry to bleed to death because of the lack of time to reorganise it. This is an industry which has caught the most severe bout of pneumonia possible because of the market recession, the problems in Iran and the problems of the world depression. Little time has been provided to allow the industry to adjust, and I regret very much the stance of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Hal Miller: I follow the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) in expressing the hope that before the debate ends we shall have an indication from the Government of the way forward as they see it. I share the right hon. and learned Gentleman's view that the House was a little surprised when my right hon. Friend sat down without offering any thought about the next stage. I have difficulty in making my speech because I am looking forward to the speech of the Minister who will wind up the debate and, no doubt, complete the second half of the act.
My right hon. Friend got us off to a good start by pointing out the context in which the debate is taking place—the decline of demand for the market, the need to readjust the industry to that demand and the extent of the support that is required from the taxpayer. However, he did not even make a virtue of that necessity. He did not re-emphasise the Government's commitment to the industry. About£450 million of taxpayers' money has been allocated to support the industry in the next year. Therefore, presumably, my right hon. Friend does have an idea about the size of the industry. To many people in industry, the size of the manufacturing base that the Government envisage in the various industries is a crucial question.
My right hon. Friend has done a great service by creating a new atmosphere in the country, an atmosphere under which management is once more compelled to assume its responsibilities for managing its industries. I admire very much the way my right hon. Friend has sought to detach the Government from day-to-day interference in management decisions. He need not have any fear that he is weakening that stance or detracting from the credibility of the climate that he has successfully sought to create by admitting that the Government had some responsibilities in these matters—for example, for the appointment of the board of the British Steel Corporation. He must express a view as to whether he is satisfied with the manner in which members of the board carry out their duties, and if he expresses no view we must assume that he is satisfied.
We want an indication of how the Government see the next stage of the dispute developing. What steps are available to bring it to an end? This is a very serious matter for all industries that make use of steel stocks. These stocks, despite all the rumours, are not very high in many of our large manufacturing industries—quite apart from the smaller ones which cannot afford to stock up in any case.
There is great doubt about the actual strategy of the British Steel Corporation and a relevant reference has been made in this debate to the fact that we have landed ourselves with two huge modernised plants necessitating the closure of a lot of viable smaller plants in order to divert more work into these huge plants. Thereby we have lost flexibility, not only in the type and size of billets we produce but also in supplying customers in certain areas. Certainly we in the West Midlands have suffered from the disappearance of the Bilston works. Horror stories abound about the difficulties experienced as a result of shunting billets around the various works trying to get them milled down to the right size. The industry has got itself into an inflexible mould as a result of decisions taken by previous Governments.
There is also grave doubt about how much the expenses of that development should be visited upon the steel workers. I do not think that any attempt has been made so far by the Government to tackle that aspect. They have not explained


how they see it, what proportion of the cost they feel should be allocated to that wrong decision, how the costs should be shared or by whom they should be borne. A Select Committee of this House has cast considerable doubt on the forecasting capabilities of the BSC.
Anyone who is faced with a contracting industry—unfortunately we have many such industries, including the motor car industry, in which I am vitally interested—needs some assurance of the basis and commitment of that industry. Is there a base and is there a commitment? When those questions have been answered, we can start to build. From all accounts the steel industry has a very constructive union that would wish to build from something, but people need to have confidence that there is a commitment before they commit themselves. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) referred to the need for leadership in this situation, and I hope that that is exactly what the Minister of State will provide when he replies, because it is necessary for the Government to state how they see the situation and the way in which it will develop.
There is another grey area about these figures. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) made a valid point that the interest rates had increased recently and that the inflation rate was higher than at the time of the orginal decision regarding the allocation of money. Also, the fuel crisis has worsened. There are social costs involved in closures, and I wonder how these have been put into the balance sheets. I realise that that is far too complicated a matter for a winding-up speech, but someone must make the effort to explain to the people involved so that the situation can be understood, allegiance can be secured, and there will be a willingness to pick up tools again. This is a simple man management problem which we, as politicians, should understand.
Then there is the question of negotiations. It is quite right that the Government should not be involved in pay negotiations. I certainly would not wish to try to tell someone how to conduct such negotiations, but certainly there is a tradeoff between jobs and pay, which was the burden of the speech made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). There is a negotiation between pay and jobs, and I cannot understand

how these two have become divorced. I cannot understand how the closures came through first and agreement was sought on those, and then suddenly, at a later stage, a pay negotiation was brought forward—at a level which I found incredible, even bearing in mind the fact that the corporation is bankrupt.
To my surprise, this Government raised benefits—almost a soon as they came into office—by a higher level than is now proposed for people who are actually in productive work. There is an expectation set in the cash limits for local government servants and civil servants that there should be an increase in the amount of money available of about 14 per cent. regardless of how it is divided between jobs. That emphasises what I have said. There is a negotiation there and these are jobs where, by definition, productivity is extremely hard to identify and measure, let alone secure. It is very difficult for a steel worker to understand how he should be initially offered so much less than people who are not necessarily contributing to the same extent. An attempt must be made to explain where the basis of negotiation lies. I hope that the winding-up speech will give an indication of how the Government see this.
I suggest that the foundation for the Goverment's approach to the next stage should be a clear statement of commitment, whatever size of industry is decided upon. Why does the Secretary of State not proclaim the fact that he has provided£450 million of taxpayers' money? That must have been done on some assumption. What was it? Let us say that we are trying to support people in difficult circumstances and help with readjustments. The Secretary of State must tackle the question of the management of the corporation and he must be seized of the need to link the negotiation on jobs with that on wages.
Finally, we all want to know the Government's reaction to some of the distasteful scenes associated with secondary picketing. Why has no action been taken? Please let us be positive and show that we understand the situation, that we have a commitment and that we are doing something about it.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I am grateful to be called so early in this debate—I feel quite honoured. I


begin by pointing out that I believe that it was the intention of the Government to provoke a confrontation with the steel unions in the event that they, the Government, could not get a settlement on their terms. I draw my proof from a document that has already been referred to in the debate—the Ridley report, which was leaked in The Economist.
That report said:
The Conservatives intend to demand that each nationalised industry achieves a set rate of return on 'capital employed'. This rate of return, once laid down, would be 'totally inflexible'. If managers did not achieve it they would be replaced.
It went on to say:
The eventual battle should be on ground chosen by the Tories, in a field they think could be won, railways, British Leyland, the civil service or steel.
Those were the terms of reference set for Sir Charles Villiers when this Government took over.

Mr. Hal Miller: Mr. Hal Miller rose—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I shall not give way. I have so little time.

Mr. Miller: The remark about British Leyland is quite out of court.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: As proof that that was the objective, I quote the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, who, following the publication of that article, said:
It is the job of our policy groups to analyse the options and to put forward a range of choices for consideration. Some of the ideas in it will no doubt survive and become policy. Some will not.
This one did. That is why we have an industrial action that is shaking the country. But people will not be fooled. The problem is that whereas the Government believe that this pretence will fool the people, workers in the industry are becoming increasingly bitter. They are being held responsible for the British Steel Corporation's difficulties. Of the£327 million lost last year,£207 million was interest payments and only£119 million was trading losses, but those losses are put down to the activities of the workers in the industry.
The£207 million interest payments stems directly from the 10-year strategy, laid down in 1973, which set as an objective a capacity of 38·5 million tonnes.

But everyone got it wrong. Politicians and management, and now the workers in the industry, are being required to pay the price. The price is a low settlement and a massive level of redundancies.
It was not the workers who took the decision on the massive level of imports of steel. Imports of coated steel last year amounted to£250 million. Against the interests of my constituents,£12 million worth of pig-iron was imported last year. Indeed,£1,000 million of steel was imported. These decisions were taken not by the workers in the industry but by management. It was not the workers who decided on the level of increased penetration by private sector operators. It was not the workers who set the 15 million tonnes capacity objective. That objective was set without consulting the ISTC and the National Union of Blastfurnacemen.
It was not even the management, in many areas, who took these decisions. It was not the Steel Industry Management Association which did so. Only a few weeks ago, in a statement on the business strategy of the corporation, the association said:
The business management philosophy is unacceptable to the corporation's middle managers and the association believes that the deep retrenchment now being proposed has been too hastily adopted and will needlessly further the process of failure compounding failure until the common heritage is virtually destroyed.
That is a voice that has not been heard in many debates or from the Government. The operative word is "destroyed". That is what is happening. This whole action is seen as destruction by the workers in the industry. They have had to cope with closures at Ebbw Vale, Hartlepool, East Moors, Shelton, Glengarnock, Bilston and, later, Corby and Shotton, at a cost of 30,000 jobs. Now they are required to save another 30,000 jobs with the closures at Port Talbot and Llanwern and the rape of Consett. So the screw turns as the Secretary of State sets these crude objectives which everyone realises cannot be met. Yet Government Members, apart from a few of them, have not had the guts to get up and challenge those objectives, as they should for the benefit and the protection of the industry.
As these objectives of the Secretary of State are being required to be met, BSC comes back again and demands 12,000



more jobs and suspension of the gauranteed working week, and makes a promise of 2, 5, 6 and 8 per cent.—a permanently mobile figure—in the belief that this will draw the steel workers back to work. It will not achieve that. That is what creates the bitterness, and the sooner the Secretary of State realises it the sooner everyone will be able to return to work.
What creates further bitterness are the television appearances of the Secretary of State for industry and his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in which they tell people that 16 per cent. settlements are available. Those levels of settlement are not available to many British Steel Corporation workers. Workers on the picket lines in my constituency complain passionately about the statements that have been made. The Secretary of State and Sir Charles Villiers refer to average wages of£104 a week, which could lead to settlements of£121 a week, if approved by the ISTC and the NUB, but those are not the levels of wages paid in my constituency.
The great majority of steel workers in Workington earn between£75 and£85 top-line gross. When they are told that they earn sums of£25 and£30 in excess of those figures, they believe that they are being misled and that the people of this country are being misled. That is why there is bitterness. Their case is being misrepresented. One can feel the heat of the anger of people on the picket line.
In the weeks prior to returning to the House, I visited the workers on the picket line. I have watched day by day as this bitterness has built up. This weekend, when I go back to my constituency, I shall once again visit the picket lines. These are moderate men. They are not extremists. They are not people who, according, to some statements by the media and by politicians and others, are allegedly politically motivated. They are the men of the regions where all the great steelworks are situated. They are the men from the industrial heartland of this country. They are men who have suffered as many of us, even on the Labour side of the House, who have perhaps enjoyed some privilege in life, can never understand and never will understand. They are the people who keep the machinery of the country in operation. They are the people who are now suffering hardship. A bond and a fraternity exists among

these workers that many people will never understand. That is what gives them the strength to go out day after day and stand on the picket lines, in the hope that the Secretary of State will see sense and make a compromise in their favour.
I appeal to the Secretary of State to look upon these people for what they are. They are real people, not plastic people. They are people of great determination. They are solid people, the men of England who have fought for it for generations. The Secretary of State is now saying that a settlement must deny them their pride. They will not give in. One day the Secretary of State will have to come back to the House and make a statement which implies a compromise. The sooner that day comes, the better. We will then be able to sleep in peace, in the knowledge that we have some government.

Mr. Michael Morris: I shall resist the temptation to follow the politicising of the dispute by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I understand the feelings of hon. Members whose constituencies are solely steel constituencies, such as Consett. I recognise the problems that they face. I have to say to those hon. Members and to the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) that I represent an engineering constituency. It was formally a shoe town. It changed to engineering without any Government subsidy. Engineers in my constituency, given a choice, will not buy British Steel. Every hon. Member should recognise that the reason why they do not wish to buy British Steel products is that the quality is poorer than that of those from the Common Market. That is a hard fact of life that Bill Sirs, Sir Charles Villiers and others have to take on board.
I had no intention of participating in the debate. However, I feel compelled to do so having listened to the Front Bench speakers and the contributions that have been made by Back Benchers. It is no good the hon. Member for Workington and Labour Members representing South Wales constituencies saying that union members are standing on picket lines. The unions should be putting forward proposals for the necessary productivity increases. The industry is in desperate need of improved productivity. I say to the unions "Get off the picket


lines and get down to negotiation." If Mr. Bill Sirs, whom I do not know personally, is half as good a man as Terry Duffy, whom I do know personally, he should be able to contact management and negotiate on productivity.
If the management is incapable of meeting the unions and sorting out the problem, and if management is saying to my right hon. Friend that the social costs in South Wales have to be considered—and that seems to be the burden of the propositions put forward from the Labour Benches—let the management of the British Steel Corporation explain to my right hon. Friend that the dispute has to do not with steel-making but with social costs.
The hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Homewood) has to face the problems that will be presented by Corby. However, he knows that the hon. Members who represent the constituencies of Northampton shire are prepared to face the problems of Corby. We shall ensure that we do our best to offer assistance. There is an opportunity for the steel makers of Corby to find alternative employment.

Mr. Homewood: Such as?

Mr. Morris: For a start, they can come into the engineering industry in Northampton. There is skilled work available and a shortage of skilled workers. Northampton is not very far from Corby. If the management of the British Steel Corporation has the problem to which I have referred, it should express it to the Government. If it does not do that, my right hon Friend is right to say that he is not the management of the corporation any more than he is the management of British Rail or of any other nationalised industry. Competent as he is, he is not an industrialist.

Mr. Frank Haynes: What about Rolls-Royce?

Mr. Morris: Yes, the same applies to Rolls-Royce.
My right hon. Friend is not an industrialist. He is a politician. I do not believe that he has settled the size of the steel industry. He has taken a financial figure, and quite rightly so, as any top manager would do. He has set a target of£450 million. The next stage is for management to use that figure to deter-

mine the appropriate size of the industry. That is the correct approach.
I represent an engineering town. Britain depends more on the engineering industry than on the steel industry.

Mr. Hooley: We cannot engineer without steel.

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman should not make sedentary comments and laugh in that manner. This is too serious a problem for that sort of attitude. We can live on imported steel if we have to do so. Of course, we do not want to do that. Labour Members such as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) should learn something about the engineering industry before they interject.
If the management of British Steel and the unions cannot solve the problem, the time will come when the rest of British industry will have to look to the Government to solve the totality of the problem. However, I accept that my right hon. Friend is right in what he has done to date. He is right to insist that it is for management and the unions to negotiate and to solve the problem.
I make one final plea to Opposition Members. I ask them not to politicise the problem. I recognise their sincerity, but they will do a grave disservice to the steel industry if they use it as a political football.

Mr. Donald Coleman: I am the first hon. Member to be called in the debate who has colleagues who are on strike. I have listened to some remarkable speeches during the debate. They were speeches that I did not expect to hear from the Government Benches. I heard Conservative Members calling for what my right hon. and hon. Friends have been urging—the intervention of the Secretary of State in the dispute. That is a means of bringing an end to a disastrous situation that faces not only the steel industry but industry generally. It could be the means of destroying British manufacturing industry. I applaud and compliment Conservative Members who have made such speeches. They have made an excellent contribution to the debate. They have placed the House in the position of being able to be proud that it is the forum of the nation.
On Monday the Secretary of State concluded the exchanges in the House


following his statement about the dispute in the steel industry by saying that he was not involved in the negotiations. He has repeated that today. He has stated that the unions have not asked to meet him. It is appalling that he has waited for the unions to ask to see him. I am glad to hear—I hope that this will be confirmed—that Ministers are to meet Mr. Bill Sirs, the general secretary of my union. When they meet him, they will find that he does not match the description offered by the hon. Members for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) and Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown)—namely, someone without understanding and responsibility. Bill Sirs has a deep appreciation of all the factors that affect the industry and those who are engaged in it. He is a man who has a responsibility within the industry. Let no hon. Member attempt to denigrate the role of Bill Sirs in the dispute.
The Government must enter into the dispute to bring the parties together. Unless they do so, it will be disastrous for the whole of British industry. The right hon. Gentleman spoke on Monday about lower-paid workers in other industries having to pay more than£1,800 from their taxes to subsidise the high earnings of each steel worker. That is dangerous nonsense.
In the December issue of the journal Accountancy, Emile Woolf explained how much steel workers' efforts were contributing to the creation of wealth, as opposed to the Government-sponsored myth that the taxpayers are funding huge losses.
Last year the employees of the British Steel Corporation created, for the nation, wealth to the value of£1,163 million. That is added value, after allowing for costs, materials, fuel, services and so on. Out of that£1,163 million, BSC paid to the Government corporation tax of£7 million, income tax of£228 million and national insurance contributions of£170 million. The interest on Government loans was£102 million. The total amount paid to the Government by the steel industry was£507 million. If£21 million is deducted for Government grants received by BSC, the total amount paid to the State by BSC in 1979 is£486 million. So, despite BSC's mismanagement of the industry, the steel workers contribute far more to the State than the£309 million loss that is held against the

industry. I hope that the Government and the Secretary of State will not perpetuate the myth about those who work in the steel industry being subsidised by the rest of the taxpayers.
Finally, I refer to the situation facing us in West Glamorgan and Gwent. We are told that there is to be a manning reduction of 6,883 workers at Port Talbot and a reduction of 4.454 at Llanwern. This is the contribution of the steel workers to making BSC a thriving and profitable industry. This weekend I, not the Secretary of State, will bump into people faced with these redundancies. They will be the redundant. That will be the reality of the contribution the steel workers have made to the nation and the prosperity of their industry.
It is the responsibility of the Government to become involved in the dispute. It is the responsibility of the Government to bring the parties together so that the amicable relations that we have always enjoyed in the industry can be restored.
When the settlement comes, let the Government take the lead by setting up an inquiry into the industry so that we can discover, and bring out, what has gone wrong. Let us see the reasons why the thousands employed in the industry, and the thousands dependent upon it, face a bleak future. It is the duty of the Secretary of State to achieve that. If he is unable to rise to that duty, let him get out.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Despite the comparatively sparse attendance in the House—I think that there have been about 25 Members present throughout the afternoon, perhaps a little more, perhaps a little less—this has been an important and interesting debate. But it has been yet another of those significant debates that have taken place during the past decade and a half that I have been in the House that are essentially about the rate of industrial change in the United Kingdom.
The context of today's debate is the rate of industrial change in the steel industry. On other occasions the context has been the rate of industrial change in the shipbuilding industry, the motor car industry and so on. Yet the essential problems remain exactly the same.
If the country accelerates the necessary economic change sufficiently rapidly to meet the economic criteria, it can be certain that it will face significant social problems. On the other hand, if we delay economic changes to the point where many of the critics of economic change on the Opposition Benches are satisfied that the social damage is minimised, the social damage is not minimised. The social damage is often just as great, or, indeed, greater. The real wealth of the nation, capable of dealing with such problems and available to do so, has been diminished because we have failed to grasp the nettle in time. As a nation we have done that time and again, in steel, shipbuilding and many other industries.
We face a serious situation. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has rightly said that the balance must be tilted and the economic criteria must be dominant. Unless they are, the capacity of this nation to meet its legitimate social aims will be so gravely imperilled that there will be few real resources left to meet those aims.
Unlike my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, I am not an expert on the arts, but I recall a medieval artist—I think that it was Van Breughel the younger—who painted vast gloomy canvasses in which bodies writhed in anguish, and in listening to the debate I have not been able to help reflecting that the withdrawal symptoms of a nation being taken off inflation are massive compared with the withdrawal symptoms of a heroin addict.
We have repeatedly told major sectors of our community, such as steel and shipyard workers, that over the past 15 years we have produced an annual growth in real income of about 2 per cent. or 3 per cent., but year after year the nation has gone through the phenomenon of what I call the cascade wage-price effect. We bluff ourselves that the growth is perhaps 8 per cent. or 10 per cent. It has increased annually, and now we are in the realm of national self-bluff of the order of 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. We bluff ourselves that that is so and we pay up. The immediate effect is a short-term benefit for the one small group, but there is a damaging and serious effect for the nation as a whole. The greater the rate of inflation, the greater and more

serious is the damaging effect for the nation.
We have been asked to consider the balance between the possibility of meeting the steel workers' demands through productivity and through other ways, essentially by some form of cascade subsidies. We are presented with a clear example of where the real challenge to the British steel industry is to be found.
At a recent conference in Amsterdam, a senior official of Nippon Steel presented a fascinating paper in which he described his company's reaction to the energy crisis that Japan started to face several years ago and is still facing. The point on which the House should reflect is that that man said that by improving productivity and material usage from about 81 per cent. to about 88 per cent. his company increased its net output of steel by about 8 million or 10 million tonnes—half the national output of the United Kingdom.
That may be disputed, but in explaining how that result was achieved the official said that within the considerable labour force of Nippon Steel 30 voluntary groups of workers spent their own time night after night and day after day working out improved productive processes for the company's steel operation.
When we are up against that, there is little point in Labour Members saying that British steel workers are up against the Government or the BSC. As the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said so eloquently, the workers are up against economic reality, and there is no escape from that.
Labour Members have understandably argued the plausible and persuasive case that a country with a great industrial history cannot imagine itself not producing steel. That is understandable. But I recall that in 1971, when I had the privilege of visiting Japan to talk to some of its senior industrialists and Ministers, I was struck by a remark that was made to me by a Minister of State in the Japanese Government. He said "By the end of this century, we in Japan will probably not be making ships or steel." I was profoundly struck by that and I asked "What will you be doing?", to which he replied "We shall be the world's leading nation in information technology, because by the end of this century information will bear the same relationship to industrial power


and wealth as steel did in the nineteenth century."
This is not the time for me to describe what has been done in Japan, but I draw the attention of the House to what is happening. Within the Western world today, within the OECD area, despite our slump and stagnation, there is one part of the OECD area where prosperity reigns undiminished. It is an area employing 26 million people. Taken by itself, that area is the sixth richest country in the world, if we define it as a country, and within the last two years it has created 1 million new jobs. Also, I think I am right in saying that it is an area in which no steel is produced, or, if some is, it is not the major steel-producing area of that continent. I am referring to California.
California probably has the highest per capita income in the world today. That per capita income, that wealth, is based on information technology. It is based on the exploitation of silicon. And I would add, with reference to what the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) said about added value, that right in the heart of my constituency about 700 to 800 employees create output to the value of£100 million every year. They are producing computers.
I am arguing that this is the way the United Kingdom has to go. I am not arguing that we should attempt in any serious sense to diminish or demolish the steel industry, but if we go on pouring hundreds of millions of pounds of the taxpayers' money into steel, shipbuilding and automobiles and neglect this area, in which for Western Europe as a whole—I saw the figures from Dr. Anderlea's paper the other day—a market of 25 billion to 30 billion dollars is foreseen by the end of 1985, we shall regret it. This is an area which appeals to us as a country, with all our skills, our science and our brains. This is the area to which we should be applying our industrial effort, our investment effort and our national effort.
I do not in any way suggest that these are complete alternatives. The problem that we face today will not go away. We obviously have to use a higher degree of skill in settling the massive industrial relations problem with which, as a country, we have saddled ourselves, because obviously we cannot dispense with the steel industry in a short time. But, if we

succumb to the temptation which my hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) and for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) put before the House and retreat significantly, we shall only make the next stage infinitely more difficult, and we shall equally make it infinitely more difficult for the country to make the necessary change of direction which, in my opinion, it must now make if by the end of the twentieth century we are to restore our national wealth and our per capita income and make and sell to the rest of the world the information technology that the world requires.
I think that historians looking at the United Kingdom could well argue that we, above all, were the people who created the trading world. We, in the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, did more probably than any other country of the developed world in Europe to develop the concept of a world market. They might say that the British at the end of the twentieth century, paradoxically, forgot that the world market existed and that that was the beginning of their most serious industrial decline.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: We have been talking about productivity. The London correspondent of Nihon Keizai Shimbun, the Japanese equivalent of the Financial Times, in comparing productivity in the Japanese steel industry and the British steel industry, pointed out that the comparison was three times more favourable to steel than it was to his newspaper, and his newspaper was produced with one-tenth of the labour employed on the Financial Times.
We need to get the human reality of the situation into perspective. There is a danger of the Government losing touch with the steel industry. We have heard in this debate some forthright speeches from the Conservative Benches, and the Minister of State may be able to produce a speech which will educate the Secretary of State. I respect the communications net that informs the Tory Party of the feeling in the country on certain aspects of our national life. I hope that the Tory Party in turn respects the communications that Labour Members have with their constituents in the steel industry. When we speak about the determination of steel workers, we know what we are talking about. We are in touch with them on the


picket lines, in the committee rooms, in their homes, in the schools where we meet the children and in the shops where we talk to the steel workers' wives, and we know that from our experience over the years the steel workers will not give in.
Equally, we observe the Secretary of State. We see his addiction to ideas, his delight in ideas. They tend to change every now and again, and I am sure that they will change again, but the problem is what to do meanwhile. I would not—and I would so advise my constituents—rely on a change of heart on the part of the Secretary of State. I do not think that the steel workers will move. Therefore, somebody in the Government has to think very hard about who is going to move. I shall speak brutally, frankly and in personal terms about the possibilities here.
The chairman of the British Steel Corporation has not very long to serve. The centre of gravity of his affections and loyalty lies in the banking world, and his peers, by whom he feels himself to be judged, are in the City. The chief executive and deputy-chairman, I am sure, still considers himself as a possibility for the succession. There are bad relations between the chairman and the deputy-chairman, publicly declared not many weeks ago and not healed today. Is it likely, therefore, that the chief executive will blot his copybook with the Government by telling the chairman firmly "We must make a settlement"?
I would advise Bob Scholey to forget about whether his copybook will remain clean with the Government and to tell the chairman frankly that a deal has to be made with the unions and to get on with it. Whether it has been Dr. Grieve's fault or Peter Broxham's fault, or whoever is to blame for the appalling hash in the conduct of negotiations, I do not know and I am not concerned to explore. What is absolutely clear is that in major strategic issues affecting the whole future of a vast and important industry which has an impact on the whole economy, when it comes to the point of leadership it is for the people at the top to see where their responsibility lies.
I understand, and the House has heard, the Secretary of State's point of view. I think he is deeply wrong. I think he will

realise that and declare himself to be wrong, but I am not sure that it will be in time. So I conclude with this appeal to the chairman, and, probably more important, to the chief executive, to act and to act soon.

Mr. Allen McKay: The situation today can be likened to the period which led to the 1926 general strike. I was disappointed when the Prime Minister did not accede to the wishes of many of my hon. Friends to recall Parliament so that we could have debated the steel industry two weeks earlier. The situation has been brought about by a Government who are incapable of correctly assessing the situation and, because of their policies, are incapable of doing anything about it. By the withdrawal of subsidies and the enforcement of strict cash limits, the Government are forcing the steel industry into self-annihilation. By inisisting on a rationalisation programme in an impossible period, the Government are pushing the industry towards industrial chaos.
The cost to be paid for Government and management mistakes and lack of investment prior to nationalisation is being thrust upon the steel workers.
This problem started with a written answer by the Secretary of State for Industry to a question from the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). The Secretary of State said:
I have set the corporation the target of operating at a profit in the 1980–81 financial year after providing for depreciation and interest. To reinforce this target, the cash limits for 1980–81 will be set at a level intended with internally generated funds to cover fixed investment and other essential capital requirements. The Government do not intend to finance operating losses."—[Official Report, 3 July 1979; Vol. 969, c. 537.]
The trouble started at that point.
That written answer sounded the death knell of British Steel as we know it. It meant that the BSC had to reverse its record of losses in a few months when remedial steps should have been taken over many years. The announcement meant a reduction of the work force from 153,000 to 100,000, with closures and partial closures at Consett, Hallside, Scunthorpe, Llanwern, Port Talbot, Corby, Shotton and Cleveland, and it meant reductions in surviving plants.
The social consequences of this are that whole towns and communities will


be economically devastated. The ripple effects will be tremendous. Eleven collieries in Wales will close with a loss of 8,000 jobs. What of the firms that supply British Steel and the National Coal Board? The NCB estimates that there will be a loss of£24 million worth of business among the firms which supply the coal industry, with the consequent loss of jobs.
Mention has not yet been made of local authorities which depend upon rates from industries and firms. It will be difficult for them to offset further deprivation in families already affected by loss of work.
What had the Prime Minister to say about this when she was questioned a short time ago? Her reply was that closures were long overdue. Such was the concern shown by the Prime Minister. If the Secretary of State for Industry has become the Pontius Pilate of this tragedy, the Prime Minister will become the Marie Antoinette of British politics.
The Conservative Party's manifesto said:
We shall continue to see that adequate resources are found for the public sector, particularly the productive public sector. We shall continue with the modernisation of coal and steel industries that are so important to Wales.
That promise has been broken by the complete devastation of that area.
Let us not forget that this strike is about the wage offer. It was not initially about closures. The strike is the result of the derisory wage offer of 2 per cent. funded by consolidation. Only those working overtime would benefit from overtime payment in an industry which has to shed 53,000 jobs. On an offer of 3 per cent., management had the audacity to tell the workers that they should forgo their guaranteed wage. The guaranteed wage had been hard fought for. The productivity deal in the offer was based upon uncertain factors.
This problem can be likened to the situation which obtained some time ago at Ford. During discussions on sanctions against Ford, the Tories went gleefully into the Lobbies to vote against the then Labour Government for the retention of such sanctions. The Tories now bemoan the fact that we have this problem today.
How can we expect men in the steel industry—on top of closures that will

lead to the loss of at least 100,000 jobs, not 53,000—to accept a derisory wage increase of 2 per cent.? That is why the steel workers in my constituency believe that the strike was engineered simply to allow the Government to dismantle the steel industry, give it to the National Enterprise Board and so command 51 per cent. of the shares. That is what has happened in other industries and that is what the workers believe is happening to the steel industry.
Much play has been made of comparative production figures. Those comparisons do not compare like with like. France loses£32 per tonne, Italy£21, Belgium£20 and the British Steel Corporation£17. We should take those comparisons into account. The ISTC has calculated losses due to mismanagement, Government decisions and other factors. They include a subsidy of£135 million for coking coal, the loss in the engineering dispute costing£23 million, and the Clyde port authority problems costing£6 million. Finance for social purposes cost£10 million and overtime£80 million, despite claims about over manning. Internal problems cost£188 million. The total cost of those factors and the Tory Government's mistakes is calculated to be£543,044,700. Taking that into consideration, the steel industry made a profit of£250 million in the current year. It is obvious that the steel industry is in difficulty, but it is in need of help, not surgery.
Must we accept that Britain is a dumping ground for the rest of the world? Is it not time that we looked at the import of cars, refrigerators and special steels? The special steels industry is important to my constituency and it will probably run into trouble because of the level of imports. That is not the fault of the workmen, because they are excellent. It is not the fault of the product, because that also is excellent. It is not the fault of the pricing, because the market is the same as that in the rest of the world. Foreign steel industries, I am led to believe, are subsidised. Against that we cannot compete.
The Government's inactivity is nothing short of criminal. They are inert and inept. Are they unable to comprehend what is happening, or have they decided deliberately to take on what they believe to be a weak union? A moderate union


has become militant and it will never be the same again. In Yorkshire the ISTC and the NUM are fused together, and the Government should bear that in mind. The Government are out of their depth and incapable of the flexibility necessary to deal with the situation.
The BSC's industrial relations section made a serious misjudgment of the problem. How does it expect the work force to react when faced with the closure of one-third of the industry and a derisory pay offer? Great play has been made by the Secretary of State of the argument that the Government are the custodians of taxpayers' money. If they believe that, why do they not test the theory and go to the country to find out what people really believe?

Dr. John Cunningham: We have had a deeply serious debate about a deeply serious issue. The issue is deeply serious not only now but for the future of Britain and the British economy. The most disappointing speech was made by the Secretary of State for Industry. He gave no commitment to the steel industry. He gave no indication of his view about the future size, scope and flexibility of the industry. Indeed, his message was that the strike will continue.
If the strike is to continue, so must the Secretary of State's statements to the House and our ability to question him about the damage that will be done to the British economy. The debate has been interesting in a number of ways. Several Government Members, who are not mavericks, who have long experience of the House and made grave and honourable speeches, left us in no doubt of their feelings about the Government's handling of the problem.
In earlier debates the Minister of State has tried to make the point that there is an identity between the Government's policy on steel and that of the previous Labour Government. We reject that. However, the objectives could be the same, so long as the Government give an assurance that it is not their intention to denationalise the BSC. I believe that the objectives are the same, even though the Secretary of State said that the Labour

Government flinched from dealing with problems.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and other senior members of the Opposition grappled with the problems. No one can deny that. The Secretary of State said that the previous Labour Government failed to deal with the problems. The Minister of State said that the policies of the Labour Party and the Conservative Party were the same. They cannot both be right. If they are, the implication is that the Government are also failing to grapple properly with the problems. In any event, we refute that argument. The policies are not the same. There was no deadline. There were no enforced closures. There was no refusal to finance BSC. There was no insulting wage offer to union members in that industry, and there was no 17 per cent. rate of inflation. All those are major differences in the recent history of BSC and the two Administrations.
I hope that before the Minister of State completes his notes on his speech he will ask himself a question. If there has been no real change in policy, why is there now a strike in BSC? There was never a national stoppage under the Labour Administration. This is the first stoppage in the industry for more than 50 years. More than half a century of good, moderate trade union activity has been brought to an abrupt halt within 12 months of the Government taking office. That is the reality, and it is a measure of the difference of approach to the industry by the Conservative Party and by the Labour Party.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) and other members of the Opposition gave sustained support to the industry and to the people working in it. That is a major difference, given the complete lack of commitment by the Secretary of State. There was also a clear, fundamental and important difference in the time scale, which was rightly emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. McKay).
There was also an absolute difference in the relationships between the previous Government and both sides of industry. The Secretary of State does not seem to want any contact with the unions. It is a disgrace that there is now a national


stoppage in the industry and that the Secretary of State has had no contact with the leaders of the unions. He has maintained his obdurate, obstinate and unbalanced stance. Far from being evenhanded, he has taken a completely unbalanced view of the circumstances in BSC, and we condemn him for that also.
I concede that there may be some measure of agreement about the state of the industry. Time and again in the debates hon. Members from each side have made the point that attempts to compare productivity on an international basis have no rational base. There are no like statistics on an international basis from which to make valid comparisons, any more than there are on manning levels or wage levels in the different industries. The comparisons just are not valid. Nowhere was this more clearly clearly demonstrated than in the article written by Bill Sirs in The Guardian on Monday of this week.
We would not agree with the Secretary of State, either, in talking about the state of the industry—that it will be possible to make the kind of progress that we would agree is necessary—unless there is consent from those in management and those in the unions, representing both sides of this major corporation. It is only by the adoption of an agreed approach to these problems that we shall get over the real difficulties that exist.
Even though objectives may be the same, and even though there may be some measure of agreement, there is no agreement on the issues that I have briefly outlined. The Government have undertaken the ruthless pursuit of the goal of massive redundancies on a time scale which, I understand, has been criticised this week, in a debate in Strasbourg, even by the Commissioner for Social Affairs of the EEC, who says that he is not aware of any need for this kind of time scale for the rundown in terms of EEC policy. I understand that he said that he believed that the Conservative Government were trying to achieve in about six months what the EEC policy allowed for in three or four years.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Having just come back from Strasbourg, I can say that that is not the gist of what the Commissioner said. Indeed, it was precisely the subject that

was due to be debated tonight and was delayed.

Dr. Cunningham: I apologise to the hon. Lady.
Is it any wonder, against this kind of background and in these circumstances, that trade unions—and not only trade unions but wholecommunities—will fight? I am amazed that Conservative Members should be so surprised about the position. Of course people will fight. Will they not fight in South Wales? Will they not fight in Consett, in Shotton and in Corby? Will they not fight in Scotland?
Would not people in the City whose interests were affected fight in such desperate circumstances? Would not Lloyd's brokers fight? Would not people in the stock market fight for their interests? Of course they would. Indeed, they may fight in many ways on a much less fair basis than the stance that has been taken by the unions in the British Steel Corporation in this disastrous situation. We certainly are not surprised about the fight, about the attitude and about the determination, and about the hardening of that attitude and that determination, in the time in which the strike has been in effect.
The unions have been criticised for a number of attitudes and for a failure to react to the circumstances which prevail in the BSC. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) made the point that the unions were never considered, that they were never taken into trust, when decisions about investment were originally taken. The unions are now being held responsible for decisions that were taken over their heads and for decisions which were taken in circumstances in which they were never consulted. They are now being asked to pay a very high price indeed for those decisions being wrong.
In the last two years, in this industry 35,000 redundancies have taken place. The Secretary of State said that there had been no contribution from the unions to—wards solving the problem. That is absolute and utter rubbish. The trouble is that he is asking them now to make a contribution that is out of all proportion to the situation in their industry. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) said, manning is only


part of the problem of productivity in the industry. The organisation and utilisation of materials on the scale used in the BSC—bottlenecks, ordering policy, energy conservation policy—

Sir William Clark: What has that got to do with it?

Dr. Cunningham: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman what it has got to do with it. If a 10 per cent. saving could be made in that area, it would wipe out the trading deficit in the British Steel Corporation. It would amount to a saving of£180 million to£200 million a year. That is the importance of that point, and many of those things could make a major contribution if tackled properly.
I am not blaming the Government, but these issues are not the responsibility of the unions in the industry. There are other contributions to productivity in the industry that should be looked at seriously. Jobs are being sacrificed willy-nilly. My hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins) knows very well that such suggestions were made to the workers in Consett. I also know about it because I live on the edge of his constituency. Those workers were told to get rid of over manning, to improve their productivity and flexibility, and to accept this and that. They did so and they have made the plant profitable. Yet still they are told that the plant will be shut down.

Mr. David Watkins: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a second brief intervention in an hon. Member's speech. I should like to give my hon. Friend some information and figures. The Consett works have become profitable. In September they made a profit of£24,000, in October£110,000 and in November a profit of£340,000. The figures that are available for December indicate that that process will continue. Furthermore, the rate of productivity, expressed in terms of production per man year in tonnes, is about 100 tonnes above the British average and is comparable with the best in Europe.

Dr. Cunningham: Against that experience, and against the raising of hopes only cruelly to dash them when workers respond so effectively, is it any wonder that the unions have said that enough was enough? Even if that were not the

case, there are other serious difficulties that prevent the industry from becoming profitable within the time scale envisaged. The chairman of the BSC recently wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Homewood) saying that even in circumstances where arrangements have been made for orderly markets the prices which are obtainable are insufficient to give an acceptable level of return to even the most efficient plants in Europe. In other words, market forces are not operating. Those are the world and market circumstances as regards steel production and steel sales. Bearing in mind a massive world recession, that makes nonsense of the supposition that within the time scale envisaged it makes sense to force the British Steel Corporation into the black by the end of the financial year.
Even if we were to set that aside and if we were to agree with everything that the Secretary of State has said—which we do not—is it credible that against an inflation rate of 17 per cent. any union could accept the offer made to the major unions in the industry? It is absolute rubbish to suggest that that was ever on. We conclude that either there was the most grotesque mismanagement, as my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray) has said, or that there was some other motive for making the offer in that way. I do not know which it is, but, either way, those who made the offer and those behind the situation in which it was made could have almost predicted the outcome. That is the reality of the situation. There is no way in which a rational position can exist in the British Steel Corporation with that kind of policy.
We are told that£450 million is a lot of taxpayers' money and that that is at risk. But there is much more than that at risk, and the Government cannot say that the events that are putting the money at risk came up suddenly. There was plenty of warning of trouble building up. There was no quick or rash decision by the unions involved, and most people in the country saw the trouble brewing a long time ago.
Although the Government exalt taxpayers almost above the national interest in this case, we are much more interested in the national interest as a whole. My hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr.


Coleman) absolutely destroyed the nonsensical argument that the Secretary of State advanced about taxpayers contributing£1,800 to wages of steel workers. It is absolute and utter rubbish and the Secretary of State knows it.

Sir William Clark: Sir William Clark rose—

Dr. Cunningham: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has not been present for most of the debate and who, since he came in, has not been able to keep his mouth shut. It is a pity that he did not cone here and make a speech if he wished to contribute to the debate. The Government have been looking for speakers.
The Secretary of State's position is identical to that of the chairman of British Steel. Is that divine providence, an accident, or has it been engineered? The Secretary of State says that he wants even-handedness, but there is nothing even-handed about his approach. He is taking sides in the most dictatorial way possible.
The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), in a brave and hard-hitting speech, and the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) brought a little reality and common sense to the situation with regard to the national interest. I agree with the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) that the Secretary of State's speech showed an absolute lack of leadership. We are told that taxpayers have to be considered above all others, but is it in the taxpayers' interests if we consider the closure costs and the redundancy, unemployment and social security payments?
The national newspapers are in no doubt about what the national interest demands. The Sunday Times, The Guardian and other writers and commentators believe that the national interest would be best served by the Secretary of State taking action to resolve the dispute. The maintenance of a strategic industry such as steel must be in the national interest. The Government are committed to increasing defence expenditure, but how can we maintain a defence capability without a steel industry in the United Kingdom? That is a risk that we are running because of the Government's policies.
What about other major industries—British Rail, British Shipbuilders and British Leyland in the public sector, and in the construction industry, Metal Box Limited and others? Is the survival of investment in those industries not in the taxpayers' interests? We should consider what is happening there.
The NCB has been given about£170 million by the Government this year. It is losing about£6 million a week while the dispute goes on. British Rail has an investment of about£430 million. BSC is British Rail's second largest customer—and while the strike continues BR will lose about£2 million a week. British Shipbuilders' building programme, with a subvention from the Government of£250 million of taxpayers' money this year—even if the Government get off their backsides and get it more orders—is bound to be jeopardised by the national steel strike.
The right hon. Gentleman says that he cannot intervene. He intervened in the case of British Leyland and of Rolls-Royce. It did not take him long to intervene there. That was the best noninterventionist approach that we have seen for a long time in the House. Similarly, it did not take him long to intervene in the circumstances of the NEB shortly after he entered office.
By forcing BSC into the present position, all the investment of taxpayers' money,£1 billion or more, is put at risk by the intransigence of the Secretary of State. He knows that as well as I do. Of course, much more investment in the private sector is also being jeopardised. He is taking a massive gamble with taxpayers' money. That is the reality. He is talking as though£450 million, in the context of the industry, is a great deal of money. That is nonsense, too. The reality is that BSC has fixed assets of about£3,000 million. That money is public investment and public property. It has a turnover of between£3,000 billion and£4,000 billion every year. The sum of£450 million is not large when it is set beside those figures—it is less than 15 per cent. of the turnover, or of the fixed assets of the corporation as a whole.
Let us have no more of this misleading of the public over investment and taxes. The reality is that£450 million is small beer in comparison with the risks that are


being taken with other public investment in major industries.

Mr. Adam Butler: If the hon. Gentleman does not think that£450 million is very much, does he think that£4,000 million over five years is not very much as well?

Dr. Cunningham: The Minister of State misquotes me. I did not say that it was not very much. I said that it was not very much in the context of the figures—the investment and turnover of the industry. The hon. Gentleman need not bother trying to misquote me and getting it on the record like that.
The Secretary of State is taking a gamble. Most speakers in the debate have taken the view that the strike will have to be settled. Somehow and at some time, we need an end of the dispute. The Secretary of State did not say anything about how he thought that might happen.

Sir William Clark: What would the hon. Gentleman do?

Dr. Cunningham: I would not listen to the hon. Member, who, apparently, seems to be incapable of keeping quiet.
Is it the case that the Secretary of State expects the union to change its position? Does the Secretary of State want to teach the union a lesson? Does he want further to demoralise those who work in the industry, the management as well as the workers? Is that what he is prepared to risk? Is he willing to risk wrecking the industrial economy of the country as a whole—our engineering industry and the other industries that I have mentioned? Those are serious gambles to be taken at this stage of world recession, with our deepening industrial recession. To take such a gamble is the most reprehensible behaviour by the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.
Hon. Members ask what we would do. If we were in Government, there would be no national steel strike in present circumstances. That is the best answer to that question. Certainly, we would at least have given a few more kind words to the attempt by ACAS to achieve some mediation. The Secretary of State did not do this in his response on Monday to questions from some of his hon. Friends.
The hon. Member for Canterbury and others have suggested that the Secretary of State should call both sides of the industry together in tripartite discussions. Why not? What would be so reprehensible about that? It would not be portrayed as a great climb down, but as a sensible, practical approach to a major national problem. That is how people would recognise such an action. The Secretary of State has advanced no good reason why he should not take that approach rather than that embodied in the commitment by the Prime Minister to a 1922 Committee meeting before Christmas that no action would be taken by the Government to resolve the strike if one took place.
The Secretary of State is fond of saying—and he has said it many times in the last few days—that the BSC is bankrupt. I do not know whether that is constitutional nonsense, but I assume that if it is true the Secretary of State has certain responsibilities to act. He has made this point several times, so we are entitled to ask him what action he will take. Why does he not have a capital reconstruction of the industry? If a private sector company was bankrupt, the bankers might insist on that. Therefore, if the Secretary of State wishes to pursue this analogy he should get on with capital reconstruction of the corporation. There is no reason why he should not take that approach if he really believes that the BSC is bankrupt.
We do not believe it. We think that the Secretary of State is trying to browbeat the trade unions, frighten the public and generally adopt a stance which will not only colour industrial relations in the steel industry for years but will colour the attitude of the trade union movement as a whole towards this Government's approach to the industrial problems that we face. We do not know why any Government in their right senses should want to take that risk so early in their life in office. That is another question that we hope the Minister of State will answer tonight.
The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Industry are fostering self-interest and greed—and I do not mean personal self-interest. In the Budget they gave away£4·5 billion in tax concessions,£1·5 billion of which went to 6 per cent. of the community in this country. The


Government can find£1·5 billion for 6 per cent. of the population, yet incredibly they can only find£450 million for one of our major strategic industries. That is a comparison the Government ought to think about. They have reduced the amount of money—compared with last year—being made available to the BSC at a time of rising inflation. That puts their funding of the industry in some kind of perspective.
We believe that it is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to act. We believe that it is his duty. It is in the national interest. I advise him to call together both sides of the industry and to get tripartite discussions going. He and his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in already difficult economic circumstances, have let slip the dogs of economic war. They will be responsible for the havoc that results.

The Minister of State, Department of industry (Mr. Adam Butler): Having listened to the hon. Member for White-haven (Dr. Cunningham), I am delighted that the Opposition are not in Government. In the time available to the hon. Gentleman, which was considerable, the House heard nothing but a lot of platitudes and a firm indication that the Opposition, if in Government, would continue to pour money regardless into British Steel.
Opposition Members have chosen in this debate to give support to the idea that this strike is a strike against the Government. I prefer to adopt the view of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who said that it is a strike against reality. I would go further and say that it is a strike against the community as a whole, including the steel workers themselves. [AN HON. MEMBER: "In my town, they are the community."] That is correct. It is a strike against the community as a whole.
There are no winners in this strike. The first Member to give weight to the view that this is a strike against the Government was, predictably, the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin). We accept that he and his hon. Friends are here for the politics, and the country should not be surprised. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the hon. Gentleman here for?"] Their supporters should be well pleased, for that is why they were elec-

ted. That is why I was elected. I was elected to fight the political battle across the Floor of the House. That is what representative democracy is about.
What those who believe in representative democracy find increasingly worrying and, I believe, will not tolerate is when those militant tendencies—or, should I say, "trendencies"?—take the political battle out on to the streets and into the factories. This strike did not start as a political strike. It should not be a political strike. I was almost tempted to say that it was too serious for that.

Mr. James A. Dunn: Mr. James A. Dunn(Liverpool, Kirkdale) rose—

Mr. Butler: I shall not give way. I have hardly begun my speech.
Nothing could be more serious than a real political strike—which this is not—when a faction in our society refuses to accept the ballot box as a way of choosing the Government of this country. The Government were elected by secret ballot with an almost unprecedented swing and with a massive majority. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not in the steel areas."] They were elected to carry out a positive programme to reverse the trend towards a militant Marxist State. That is one good reason why we were elected. We were elected to safeguard democracy.

Mr. Hardy: If the hon. Gentleman is seriously concerned about maintaining the decencies of parliamentary democracy, as are most of us, if not all, in the House, he has an obligation to deal in accuracy and truth. Will he therefore explain to the House a matter that is far more relevant than any we have so far heard from him? How can he have gone around the House and outside saying that the BSC is right at the bottom of the league in terms of profit and loss per tonne or in terms of return on capital when the answer I obtained from his Department yesterday demonstrates that that is not true?

Mr. Butler: I shall come to that. The answer that was given to the hon. Gentleman referred to 1978.
We were elected to protect the freedom of the individual from bullying and intimidation, from whatever quarter, and to enable him to go to work as he chooses. That is why we shall push through the


House the Employment Bill, with all its important provisions.
We were elected to clear up the economic mess left by years of Socialism. We were elected to reverse the trend of relative decline and decay of industry and to offer to all who work in British industry the chance to prove that British is best.
"Best" is a product which, for a start, competes with its rivals and provides good value. It is able to do that if it is the right quality at the right price and is delivered on time. Even those on the Opposition Benches will now begin to understand how that argument is linked with steel.
In all, "best" gives the customer what he wants when he wants it, and does it better than competing products. Does not the strike have its origins in that—namely, from attempts to ensure that British Steel is best? That is what we all want, including the Government, the corporation, the unions, Sir Charles Villiers and Mr. Bill Sirs. Only those who would undermine and destroy our economy are against that idea. It is they who seize any opportunity to exploit our present problems or to fan discontent.
The Opposition want to ensure that British Steel is best. Of course they do. Their pronouncements in 1978 made that clear. They have been quoted today and in previous debates. I was not sure whether the hon. Member for Whitehaven was agreeing that the policies are the same. However, I believe that the objectives are the same. The difference between us is the determination to put them into effect. The question is whether there is a readiness on the Opposition Benches, as there is on the Government Benches, to face reality.
The best-value steel cannot be produced and sold by an industry which is inefficient. It cannot be produced competitively with out-of-date plant. That is why, I regret, Shotton has to close. The cost of steel cannot be brought down to competitive levels when plant is under-utilised. It can be produced competitively in modern plant only if that plant is properly loaded. That is why the contraction of the British steel industry has to take place. It is essential—I take up the theme of the White Paper introduced by the Labour Government in 1978—for capacity to be brought more into line with

demand. It is essential to put production into the works with the most modem plant.
Generally our plant is modern. It is not as modern as we might like it to be when we consider the competition, but it is generally modern. That is due to the£2¼billion of capital investment that the taxpayer has put into BSC in the past five years.
Some Labour Members were critical of my right hon. Friend for not mentioning the corporation's announcement today concerning its thinking about the plants in South Wales. I must remind the Opposition that the announcement of contraction was made on 11 December and we debated steel in the House on 13 December. Today's announcement by the corporation contains its thinking on the future for two plants—continuing to keep them open, or a slimming down. However, that is subject to further discussions with the unions.
Another ingredient is needed to bring BSC in line with its competitors.

Mr. Roy Hughes: The Minister has made a significant statement. From the announcement that we who represent the steel areas of South Wales received from BSC this afternoon, it seemed that the decision was final. The Minister now seems to be saying that it is subject to negotiation with the union. Will he elaborate?

Mr. Butler: Yes; if I can lay my hand immediately on the press release, I shall be able to do so. The British Steel press release makes its position clear. [HON. MEMBERS: "What does it say?"] Right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench can read it just as well as I can.
Another ingredient is needed to get BSC into line with the competition. Its labour force must be at least as productive as those of its competitors. This is well recognised by management and unions. Many productivity figures are bandied about. If Opposition Members read the NEDC report, as the right hon. Member for Deptford claimed he had done, they will see that the figures all point to the lower productivity of workers in BSC compared with their principal competitors.

Mr. Stan Crowther: I wonder whether the Minister would explain his argument in relation to productivity as it affects the employees at the Rotherham works? My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) and I have never failed to remind the House that these men are world beaters; they have broken world production records many times. How do they increase their productivity still further before they can have a proper wage increase? That is a matter that needs to be explained.

Mr. Butler: I entirely agree. That is a matter for negotiation between the management and the union. If no productivity gain can be made—which is extremely unlikely—some other arrangement must be made. But that is not a matter for me. That is something for management and unions to negotiate.
The official Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Deptford, finally gave us his party's recipes. The first recipe was for an expansion of capacity, when he had previously admitted that there was a serious decline in the steel industry throughout the world. The right hon. Gentleman chose to second-guess the corporation's management. That is the habit of Socialist politicians. However, I remind him that, although the Conservative Government in 1973 and BSC management of the day were way out of line in their forecasts, and were bidding for production of 36 million to 38 million tonnes a year in the early 1980s, the Labour Government were elected in 1974—I do not hold the right hon. Member for Deptford personally responsible for that—and suggested that capacity would rise to 44 million tonnes a year in the early 1980s. As the right hon. Gentleman's Government were wrong on that occasion, I do not think we need to listen to his recipe today.
The other recipe is to keep the steel workers at work, within a ring-fence of import controls, living off the taxpayer. That is something that we totally reject. Yet the right hon. Gentleman and a number of Opposition Members expect the Government to find more money. That would mean passing the cap round yet again.

Dr. Bray: On the question of second-guessing and checking the accounts of the corporation, is the Minister aware

that it was using experimental commodity accounts compiled by the Central Statistical Office without the knowledge of that office and that in the following quarter the Central Statistical Office revised BSC's figures by 20 per cent.? Unless the Department of Industry checks that sort of calculation, the most colossal howlers will continue to be made.

Mr. Butler: There have been a number of views on the estimates of the BSC, but I have seen none suggesting that the corporation is far off the mark.
Even if the BSC gets down to the level of 15 million tonnes, there will still be surplus capacity in plants that are partially mothballed or still under-utilised.
One must ask those who want to spend more money where they suggest it should come from. The hon. Member for Whitehaven does not think that£450 million is very much. Let me tell him that it equals about 1p on the basic rate of income tax. In May the electors voted for a reduction in income tax, which they got, not for an increase.
Would those who want the Government to put in more money want it to come from profitable businesses? Should they be asked to dig into their funds, to cut back on their investment and to impoverish themselves so that they in turn have to come to the Government to be bailed out or go bankrupt and turn their employees out of their jobs?
Must the money come from the disabled or from reductions in pensions? Will Labour Members give up hospitals or schools in their constituencies? Will the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) give up the new general hospital in his constituency? Will the hon. Member for Whitehaven give up his two new schools? Will the Leader of the Opposition give up the two schools that are under construction in his constituency so that the Government can put more money into the BSC? They will not. They sit there dumb because they know that they would fight any such proposals.
Would the money have to be borrowed, with the result that more money is taken away from the private sector, jobs are put at risk and interest rates are kept high or pushed even higher? Would the mortgage payer want that?
Those are the realities of the economic situation. If Labour Members want us to spend more money on British Steel, they must realise that it has to come from somewhere. If it is borrowed, it will affect interest rates and mortgage rates.
That is the stark choice and the reality that the Labour Government never faced. From everything said in the debate, it is clear that they would not face up to it if they were in power now. They were good on words but never in deeds. That is why the BSC and our economy face the problems confronting them today. So much blame attaches to the Labour Government.

Mr. James A. Dunn: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Butler: No. I have only 13 minutes left and I have been generous with my time.
Why does the corporation not have the cash to pay its workers? It has been caught up in a vicious spiral of industrial disputes and their consequences, which are almost more vicious than the pay and prices spiral. Because of the interdependence of our economy, no industrial activity can take place in isolation. A strike in one industry, company or factory has repercussions elsewhere. To adapt the well-known saying of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), one man's strike is another man's job loss. As proof, what has been the experience of the corporation in 1979 alone?

Mr. John Morris: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Butler: No.

Mr. Morris: Mr. Morris rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister has indicated that he does not intend to give way.

Mr. Butler: I have been very generous with my time, Mr. Speaker. I was given two minutes less, and I have given way very frequently.
Let me say what was the experience of the British Steel Corporation and its workers in 1979.

Mr. Morris: Mr. Morris rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. For the last time, the Minister has made it clear that he is not giving way. Therefore, he must be allowed to address the House, and I must ask the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) not to rise again. In view of what I have said, to get up a third time would be offensive to the Chair.

Mr. Morris: On a point of order, Mr. speaker. Surely I am allowed to put a point of order. Certainly I have no intention of intervening again in the Minister's speech, but may I ask for your guidance? Surely it is the practice of this House that a Minister replying to a debate should seek to reply to the debate.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order.

Mr. Butler: Hansardwill show, Mr. Speaker, that the Opposition do not want to hear what the Government have to say.
The effects on the British Steel Corporation during 1979 of the strikes of others were very serious indeed. The road hauliers' strike cost it£50 million, the engineers' strike£23 million, and Hunterston, covering the jobs of 60 people,£6 million. The total during 1979 from those three strikes alone was£80 million, approximately 10 per cent. of the corporation's wage bill. If that money were in the till now, it might be available for paying out.
The steel workers, because there is not the money to meet their wage claims, are taking it out on the road hauliers and the engineers. There are 6,000 road hauliers laid off at the moment, and the engineering workers are faced with the same dread prospect. This is not just a short lay-off, a temporary loss of jobs. Because of this strike, BSC will already have lost business, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown) pointed out in an example from his constituency. The effects of the strike have already been damaging. That is all the more reason now for a settlement as soon as possible.
Hon. Members have rightly questioned how the Government see the development of the situation. First, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry put on record what the offer has been and what the rival claim has been, and,


despite the attempts of Opposition Members to pretend that the offer still stands at 2 per cent., it is a 12 per cent. minimum offer—yes, with important strings attached.
I deny that the Government are not involved. Of course they are. The Government have been involved for years as the provider of public funds for the industry. This year they have provided£700 million, and in 1980–81 they will provide a further£450 million. But we have a responsibility to the taxpayer, as I reminded my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis). We have and are endeavouring to use the means at our disposal to ensure that we have a viable steel industry, no longer dependent upon public charity. That is what the previous Administration wanted.
Ministers have kept themselves closely informed of developments. We have welcomed the involvement of ACAS. That is its purpose. It is an independent body, set up for the purpose of advice and conciliation. Now Mr. Sirs and Mr. Smith have written to the Prime Minister to ask whether she will see them. She has replied in a letter to them that she would be happy to see them, but she advises, rightly, that they should see my right hon. Friend and the Secretary of State for Employment, and a meeting will take place at an early date.
The invitation has been made to them, and my right hon. Friend was prepared to lay aside every engagement to respond to the approach from Mr. Sirs and Mr. Smith. But let me make clear that this meeting will not be a negotiating meeting; negotiations are and must remain the responsibility of the two parties to the dispute. Because it was the practice of the previous Administration to take negotiations out of the hands of the parties to a dispute, the tendency has arisen for management and unions to shrug off their responsibilities.
As I understand it, the trade unions want free collective bargaining. They rejected the pay policy of the previous Government, and the Labour Party never ceases telling us that that is one reason why it was defeated at the polls. The trade unions have free collective bargaining now between themselves and the steel management. They have to live together in the future and they must work out that future together.
I was questioned on several matters, and I must correct some of the information which has been put across, particularly about the comparative performance of other steel industries on the Continent and elsewhere. In 1978 the figures showed losses for all the European industries, but in the first half of 1979 profits were being made in Holland and Germany. The Belgian company, Cockerill, reports that it is moving towards profit. In Luxembourg losses have been sharply reduced and there is a movement towards profit. This is the change-round in 1979, partly because steel production was at a record rate in 1979. It was up 5 per cent. in England, yet the record for the British Steel Corporation was, if anything, worse during that year than it was before.
The debate has revolved around the strike and the corporation's plans for restructuring. It has been about the strike and its threat to jobs now and in the future. It has been about the contraction of the industry brought about by the need to reduce capacity to bring it into line with demand and all that that means for certain steelworks and, again, jobs. Of course there is worry; there is great anxiety; there are some bitter feelings and a fear for the future. This is understandable. Yes, there are those feelings in my constituency because there is alarm about the future among all those workers who are not in the British Steel Corporation, who are not parties to the dispute, who wonder why they should have to suffer. Their jobs look increasingly at risk as the strike continues.
What of the men who will lose their jobs because of steel closures? They, too, argue that it is no fault of theirs. I do not attempt to apportion blame. It is a mixture of factors which brings about the need for contraction: management not having the strength to fulfil its responsibilities, the Government not allowing closures and continuing to pour in public money, which serves only to delay, making the situation worse in so doing and unions resisting demanning. All these factors have come together in the steel industry and as a result there can be no doubt that redundancies are inevitable.
The Government fully accept their responsibility to help with the social consequences of the closures. The Government have not been ungenerous in making money available for this purpose. But they


cannot and will not go on pumping taxpayers' money into British Steel either to enable it or to encourage it to go on operating inefficiently and unprofitably.
The future of British Steel will be assured, provided that it can compete on price, on quality and on delivery, and compete profitably. The modern plant is there. Its future is linked with the settlement of the strike. And the settle-

ment of the strike and the future are in the hands of management, the unions and the workers. The House, certainly the Government Benches, will want to give them every encouragement in their immediate and their future tasks.

Question put, That this House do now adjourn: —

The House divided:  Ayes 259, Noes 313.

Division No. 140]
AYES
[10.00 pm


Abse, Leo
Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Lamond, James


Adams, Allen
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Leadbitter, Ted


Allaun, Frank
English, Michael
Leighton, Ronald


Alton, David
Ennals, Rt Hon David
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Anderson, Donald
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Evans, John (Newton)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Ewing, Harry
Litherland, Robert


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Field, Frank
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Ashton, Joe
Fitch, Alan
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Flannery, Martin
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McCartney, Hugh


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Ford, Ben
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Bidwell, Sydney
Forrester, John
McElhone, Frank


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Foster, Derek
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Foulkes, George
McKelvey, William


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor 


Bradley, Tom
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Maclennan, Robert


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Freud, Clement
McMahon, Andrew


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
McNally, Thomas


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
George, Bruce
McWilliam, John


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Magee, Bryan


Buchan, Norman
Ginsberg, David
Marks, Kenneth


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Golding, John
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Gourlay, Harry
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Campbell, Ian
Graham, Ted
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)


Canavan, Dennis
Grant, John (Islington C)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Carmichael, Neil
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Maxton, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cartwright, John
Hardy, Peter
Meacher, Michael


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Mikardo, Ian 


Cohen Stanley
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Haynes, Frank
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Conlan, Bernard
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Cowans, Harry
Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Crowther, J. S.
Home Robertson, John
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Cryer, Bob
Homewood, William
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hooley, Frank
Newens, Stanley


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Horam, John
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Ogden, Eric


Davidson. Arthur
Howells, Geraint
O'Halloran, Michael


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Huckfield, Les
O'Neill, Martin


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hudson Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Park, George


Deakins, Eric
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Parker, John


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Janner, Hon Greville

Parry, Robert


Dempsey, James
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Pavitt, Laurie


Dewar, Donald
John, Brynmor
Pendry, Tom


Dixon, Donald
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Penhaligon, David


Dobson, Frank
Johnson, Walter (Derby South)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Dormand, Jack
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Prescott, John


Douglas, Dick
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Race, Reg


Dubs, Alfred
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Radice, Giles


Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)


Dunnett, Jack
Kerr, Russell
Richardson, Jo


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Eadle, Alex
Kinnock, Neil
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Eastham, Ken
Lambie, David
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Lamborn, Harry
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)




Robertson, George
Stallard, A. W.
Wellbeloved, James


Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)
Steel, Rt Hon David
Welsh, Michael


Rodgers, Rt Hon William
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Rooker, J.W.
Stoddart, David
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Stott, Roger
Whitlock, William


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Strang, Gavin
Wigley, Dafydd


Rowlands, Ted
Straw, Jack
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Ryman, John
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Sandelson, Neville
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Sever, John
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Sheerman, Barry
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)
Winnick, David


Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)
Woodall, Alec


Short, Mrs Renée
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Sllkln, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Tilley, John
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Silkin, Rt Hon S.C. (Dulwich)
Tinn, James
Wright, Sheila


Silverman, Jullus
Torney, Tom
Young, David (Bolton East)


Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.



Snape, Peter
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: 


Soley, Clive
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Spearing, Nigel
Watkins, David
Mr. George Morton.


Spriggs, Leslie
Weetch, Ken





NOES


Adley, Robert
Colvin, Michael
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Aitken, Jonathan
Cope, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Alexander, Richard
Cormack, Patrick
Hannam,John


Alison, Michael
Corrie, John
Haselhurst, Alan


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Costain, A. P.
Hastings, Stephen


Ancram, Michael
Cranborne, Viscount
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Arnold, Tom
Critchley, Julian
Hawksley, Warren


Aspinwall, Jack
Crouch, David
Hayhoe, Barney


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Heddle, John


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Dickens, Geoffrey
Henderson, Barry


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Dorrell, Stephen
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hicks, Robert


Banks, Robert
Dover, Denshore
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)


Bell, Sir Ronald
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Bendall, Vivian
Durant, Tony
Hooson, Tom


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Dykes, Hugh
Hordern, Peter


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)


Best, Keith
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Eggar, Timothy
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Elliott, Sir William
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Biggs-Davison, John
Emery, Peter
Hurd, Hon Douglas


Blackburn, John
Eyre, Reginald
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Body, Richard
Fairbalrn, Nicholas
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fairgrieve, Russell
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Faith, Mrs Sheila
jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Farr, John
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Bowden, Andrew
Fell, Anthony
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Kershaw, Anthony


Braine, Sir Bernard
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Kimball, Marcus


Bright, Graham
Fisher, Sir Nigel
King, Rt Hon Tom


Brinton, Tim
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Knight, Mrs Jill


Brittan, Leon
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Knox, David


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lamont, Norman


Brooke, Hon Peter
Forman, Nigel
Lang, Ian


Brotherton, Michael
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Fox, Marcus
Latham, Michael


Browne, John (Winchester)
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Lawrence, Ivan


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Lawson, Nigel



Bryan, Sir Paul
Fry, Peter
Lee, John


Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Buck, Antony
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Budgen, Nick
Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bulmer, Esmond
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)



Burden, F. A.
Glyn, Dr Alan
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Butcher, John
Goodhart, Philip
Loveridge, John


Butler, Hon Adam
Goodhew, Victor
Luce, Richard


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Goodlad, Alastair
Lyell, Nicholas


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Gorst, John
McCrindle, Robert


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gow, Ian
Macfarlane, Neil


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Gower, Sir Raymond
MacGregor, John


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Channon, Paul
Gray, Hamish
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Chapman, Sydney
Greenway, Harry
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)


Churchill, W. S.
Grieve, Percy
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
McQuarrie, Albert


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Madel, David


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Grist, Ian
Major, John


Clegg, Sir Walter
Grylls, Michael
Marland, Paul


Cockeram, Eric
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm &amp; Ew'll)
Marlow, Tony







Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Pink, R. Bonner
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Mates, Michael
Pollock, Alexander
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Mather, Carol
Porter, George
Stokes, John


Mawby, Ray
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Tapsell, Peter


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Prior, Rt Hon James
Tebbit, Norman


Mayhew, Patrick
Proctor, K. Harvey
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mellor, David
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Meyer Sir Anthony
Raison, Timothy
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Rathbone, Tim
Thompson, Donald


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Thome, Neil (Ilford South)


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Thornton, Malcolm


Miscampbell, Norman
Renton, Tim
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Rhodes James, Robert
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Moate, Roger
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Trippier, David


Monro, Hector
Ridsdale, Julian
Trotter, Neville


Montgomery, Fergus
Rifkind, Malcolm
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Moore, John
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Morgan, Geraint
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Viggers, Peter


Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast East)
Waddington, David


Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Rost, Peter
Wakeham, John


Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Royle, Sir Anthony
Waldegrave, Hon William


Murphy, Christopher
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)


Myles, David
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Neale, Gerrard
Scott, Nicholas
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Needham, Richard
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Waller, Gary


Nelson, Anthony
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Walters, Dennis


Neubert, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Ward, John


Newton, Tony
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)
Watson, John



Normanton, Tom
Shersby, Michael
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Nott, Rt Hon John
Silvester, Fred
Wheeler, John


Onslow, Cranley
Sims, Roger
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally
Skeet, T. H. H.
Whitney, Raymond


Osborn, John
Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)
Wickenden, Keith


Page, John (Harrow West)
Speed, Keith
Wiggin, Jerry


Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Speller, Tony
Wilkinson, John


Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Spence, John
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Paisley, Rev Ian
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Winterton, Nicholas


Parkinson, Cecil
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Wolfson, Mark


Parris, Matthew
Sproat, Iain
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Squire, Robin
Younger, Rt Hon George


Patten, John (Oxford)
Stanbrook, Ivor



Pattie, Geoffrey
Stanley, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES: 


Pawsey, James
Steen, Anthony
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and 


Percival, Sir Ian
Stevens, Martin
Mr. Anthony Berry.


Peyton, Rt Hon John

Question accordingly negatived.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Ordered,


That the Motion relating to Standing Order No. 5 (Friday Sittings) may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock or for one and a half hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later.—[Mr. Cope.]

RHODESIA (CONSTITUTION, ELECTIONS AND APPOINTMENTS)

10.12 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Richard Luce): I beg to move,
That the Southern Rhodesia (Constitution of Zimbabwe) (Elections and Appointments) Order 1979 (S.I., 1979, No. 1654), a copy of which was laid before this House on 13 December, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: It may be the wish of the House to take with this the other order relating to Southern Rhodesia. Is that the wish of the House?

Mr. Edward Rowlands: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman objects, they must be taken separately.

Mr. Luce: The order is made under the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979, one of the purposes of which is, as hon. Members will recall, to enable a Governor to be appointed and elections to be arranged as essential steps in bringing Rhodesia to legal independence. In particular, section 2 of that Act provided that certain parts of the independence constitution should be brought into effect before independence so that elections could be held and the constitution could function effectively from the date of independence. My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal informed the House at the time that it would be necessary to make certain modifications in the independence constitution in so far as it applied to the pre-independence period.
This order authorises the Governor to take the steps necessary to conduct elections and appoint a Prime Minister and other Ministers who can assume office on independence. Different parts of the order will be brought into effect by the Secretary of State as they are required.
Article 3 of the order authorises the Governor to make arrangements for elections to the House of Assembly and the Senate. The Governor has already taken several steps in this direction. Detailed ordinances have been enacted modifying the electoral law and thus providing for the functions and duties of the election commissioner and the election council. I

shall arrange for copies of these ordinances to be placed in the Library of the House. The election commissioner took up his duties in mid-December and is supervising the preparations for the elections. Political parties wishing to take part in the elections have been required to register, and the nomination of candidates will take place on 21 January. Commonwealth observers will be going to Rhodesia to observe the elections towards the end of the month.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman say what arrangements, if any, have to be made or what consideration has been given concerning refugees being allowed to vote if they are not all returned to the country by the time the election takes place?

Mr. Luce: If I may, I shall come to that in a moment. I was talking about the Commonwealth observers. Arrangements will be made for them to go out and observe the elections towards the end of this month.
The Government will shortly be proposing, through the usual channels, arrangements for a small number of Members of all parties and both Houses to visit Rhodesia to observe the elections. Elections on the white roll will be held on 14 February. These elections take place separately from those on the common roll, largely for administrative convenience, since they are held for constituencies with a register of voters. The common roll elections will be held on 27 to 29 February on a party list system in eight electoral districts. The schedule to the order provides for the elections to be held on a list rather than a constituency basis. The schedule also modifies the constitution to remove residence qualifications for elections to the Senate and the House of Assembly and to ensure that any person deprived of his citizenship on grounds other than on grounds of fraudulent registration by the former Administration of Rhodesia should be entitled to vote.
Arrangements for elections to the Senate will be made immediately after the elections to the House of Assembly have been completed.
Article 4 of the order requires the Governor to appoint a Prime Minister, and, if the Prime Minister so advises, the


Governor may also appoint other Ministers. In accordance with provisions of the constitution, the Governor will appoint as Prime Minister the person who, in his judgment, is best able to command the support of a majority of Members of the House of Assembly.
Article 5 requires the Governor to make provision for voting for President-elect, who will assume office on independence day.
The remaining articles of the order will enable the Governor to set a date for the first meeting of the Parliament of Zimbabwe, which will be after independence. The only meetings to be held before independence will be limited to meetings to elect a presiding officer for each House.
Finally, the order brings into force those parts of the independence constitution which will be required to give effect to the other provisions of the order.
Before concluding my remarks, I should like to make a few general comments which form a background to the order. During questions in the House yesterday, a number of criticisms were made of the Governor's administration and of the Government's policies. I do not complain of that, but I think it important that the House should recognise the remarkable achievements of the Governor's administration in the space of only five weeks. Rhodesia has been returned to legality and sanctions have been lifted. A ceasefire has been established, the monitoring force deployed and some 21,000 members of the Patriotic Front forces have reported to assembly places, where their needs are being met by the monitoring force. The logistical task alone is enormous. The ceasefire commission is meeting regularly and good co-operation has been established between the respective military commanders. The Governor has made full use of the Patriotic Front's military commanders in dealing with threatening incidents and they have had considerable success in settling these. I would pay tribute also to the performance of the Rhodesian police, who have performed their role in very difficult circumstances with great skill.
On the political front, I have already described the arrangements.

Mr. Stanley Newens: Before leaving the question of guerrilla forces, perhaps the Minister will tell us what steps the Government propose to take in order to avoid incidents leading to conflicts as a result of which there are further casualties and bad feeling. What steps are provided to enable the members of the Patriotic Front who have been fighting but who have not gone to the agreed assembly points to go to them—or, at any rate, to give up their fighting stance—and to take part in the elections?

Mr. Luce: I know that the hon. Member has followed the Rhodesia story with great interest. He will know that there is a ceasefire commission as part of the machinery in Salisbury. Under the election commissioner there is an election council. In both respects, a forum is provided to which people from all sides can go who have complaints about incidents in local areas or about election procedures and their fairness. That is an essential part of the agreement reached at Lancaster House.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that, for example, the ceasefire commission is meeting regularly—at least twice a week—and that its members, who are co-operating well together, obviously meet outside the context of those meetings and keep in touch daily. Naturally there are incidents—it would be surprising if there were not—but they are fully investigated.
Having answered that point, I have forgotten the hon. Gentleman's other question.

Mr. Newens: Will the Minister tell us what provisions have been made to enable the members of the Patriotic fighting forces who have not already gone to the assembly points to take part in the elections?

Mr. Luce: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the completion of the ceasefire took place on 4 January. On the whole, there was a remarkable success. As I have already said, more than 21,000 Patriotic Front personnel have assembled. The Governor decided that after midnight on 4 January anyone still proclaiming to be a member of the Patriotic Front but who was not in an assembly point would be unlawful under the rules and regulations agreed at Lancaster House. However, if a Patriotic Front member


then wishes to join an assembly camp—one of the assembly points—he need only make his wish known to the nearest local authority and arrangements will be made for him to proceed without his weapons to those camps.
A considerable number of Patriotic Front members have taken advantage of that offer. I hope the House will agree that the Governor has been very flexible in his interpretation of the Lancaster House agreement.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: It is my impression, and perhaps that of the House, that on the whole, where there has been a breach of the ceasefire, the Governor has called upon the old security forces. However, the intention at Lancaster House was that the Patriotic Front forces would be used to monitor their own breaches and that the security forces would monitor theirs. In the incidents that have occurred, what has been the balance between those put down by security forces and those put down by the Patriotic Front?

Mr. Luce: As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, it was agreed at Lancaster House that both the Patriotic Front forces and the Rhodesian police would be at the disposal of the Governor, for him to use at his discretion in whatever circumstances. Of course, it is true that in the initial stages of the agreement the Patriotic Front forces assembled. In the process of assembly the Rhodesian security forces, as was agreed at Lancaster House, withdrew within the vicinity of their company locations. Since the Patriotic Front's forces were concentrating on assembling, in the initial stages it was naturally less likely that the Governor would be able to use these forces in a balanced fashion because they had not assembled.
It must be left to the Governor to decide how he uses the forces. It is his job to ensure—he is doing his utmost to do so—that he holds free and fair elections and that he interprets the rules of the Lancaster House agreement as they were agreed and signed on 21 December.
In recent days the Governor has used Patriotic Front force commanders and liaison officers to assist him in dealing with incidents and to go to certain spots to look at and investigate them. He is doing that on an increasing scale, and it

is for him to determine. He has been given that term of reference.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) also raised the question of refugees and their return. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees has been asked to undertake the overall co-ordination of the return of about 250,000 refugees from the surrounding States of Botswana, Mozambique and Zambia. The commission is getting on with that task, in co-operation with us, the civil servants in Salisbury, the International Committee of the Red Cross and various voluntary bodies to see that the return of the refugees takes place as rapidly as possible. As I have indicated, it should be possible to start the process of returning refugees on a substantial basis fairly rapidly in the next few days.

Mr. Ioan Evans: One of the anxieties expressed in the previous discussion on Rhodesia in the House was that South African troops should withdraw completely, and we were given a categorical assurance that that would take place. However, in reply to my question yesterday, the Lord Privy Seal said:
I cannot assure the House that all South African troops have been withdrawn because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Governor has reviewed the situation and has decided that a small contingent of South African forces is required to guard the Beit bridge."—[Official Report, 16 January 1980; Vol. 976. c. 1612.]
If it is a small force, surely we could use our forces instead. Why has the agreement reached at Lancaster House been breached? This is causing concern among the front-line Presidents and others who are concerned to move forward to a successful election.

Mr. Luce: As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal gave a full answer yesterday, but I shall reiterate the position if it will help the House. It is true that in December we said that there would be no external intervention, and we stick to that, but let me make it absolutely clear what the Governor has announced.
Half the Beit bridge belongs to South Africa, and it is in an area where there have recently been serious incidents. The Governor therefore accepts that there should be a small South African contingent there whose sole task will have nothing to do with external intervention but will concern the defence of a bridge


that facilitates supplies for Rhodesia, Zambia and Zaire and is important to the surrounding countries. My right hon. Friend also told the House that monitors have been allocated to the area to make sure that the forces that are there to look after the security of the bridge fulfil that task and that task alone.
There was a full exchange yesterday, and the more one thinks about it the more important it is to get the issue into perspective. No one with any imagination could imagine that a small South African contingent, alongside other forces and with monitors there, will intimidate voters in Rhodesia. The Governor's main task is to ensure that there are free and fair elections, and he has made it absolutely plain that the decision which he announced 10 days to a fortnight ago will be kept constantly under review—and I reiterate that the Governor has the issue constantly under review.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does not the Governor's decision concede that South Africa has an interest to be inside Rhodesia? The South Africans have said that they will not tolerate a Patriotic Front Government in Salisbury, elected or otherwise. What assurances are there that the South Africans will not use that bridgehead into Rhodesia to drive into Salisbury after the elections? It is the most provocative issue that has arisen and could sour everything that has so far happened, of which the hon. Gentleman claims to be justly proud.

Mr. Luce: I must ask the House to keep the matter in perspective. There are any number of sensitive problems that the Governor deals with and will have to deal with every day.
It is well known—President Machel has admitted it in public, because he is anxious to co-operate in this context—that a considerable number of Mozambiquans have been serving for a long time in Rhodesia alongside the Patriotic Front forces.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Mr. Frank Dobson(Holborn and St. Pancras, South) rose—

Mr. Luce: No, I have given way a great deal and I should like to complete what I have to say now to give an opportunity to hon. Members to make their points. Then, with the leave of the

House, I will try to answer their anxieties at the end of the debate.
In trying to get the problem into perspective, I have been seeking to demonstrate some of the achievements. It disappoints me that every time some Labour Members make a speech or intervene on this matter they identify only the problems, never the successes and the progress. I wish that sometimes they would give credit to all those who are taking part in this great exercise in Rhodesia.

Mr. James Callaghan: At the risk of incurring the hon. Gentleman's further displeasure, I should point out to him that the Lord Privy Seal's statement on 18 December clearly enunciated that there would be no question of the presence of foreign units or South African units in Rhodesia. I well understand that when a practical situation arises the Governor may want to take a different decision, despite the psychological disadvantages that will undoubtedly ensue.
Has the Patriotic Front been consulted about the presence of the unit? Have any representations been made by Mr. Nkomo or Mr. Mugabe? If so, and if they object because of the psychological disadvantages and the clear pledge that was given, will the Governor review the situation and make sure that the small contingent is withdrawn?

Mr. Luce: I have already made plain to the House, but I will endeavour to reiterate the matter to the right hon. Gentleman, that the purpose of the South African force is solely to defend the Beit bridge. The force is monitored. The Governor has made plain, and I stress it again now, that the problem is constantly under review. The value of the exercise is that, under the Lancaster House agreement, machinery has been established in Salisbury, through the ceasefire commission and the election council, that enables any of the leaders of any party to make their views known. Not only that, but the Governor is accessible to all parties. All the leaders who are there have seen him on regular occasions and they can make their views known to him in that way. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), with all his experience, will acknowledge the importance of that.
I am anxious to co-operate with the House and, with the leave of the House, I shall enlarge further upon some of fee anxieties of hon. Members at the end of the debate. However, I should like to complete my comments now to enable hon. Members to make their contributions.
I should like to stress the achievements. On the political front, I have already described the arrangements which have been made for elections. The ban on ZANU and ZAPU was lifted immediately the agreements were signed. Leading members of both parties, including Mr. Mugabe and Mr. Nkomo, have returned to Rhodesia. Considerable progress has been made towards normalising Rhodesia's relations with neighbouring countries. Both Mozambique and Zambia have established liaison offices in Salisbury and action has begun on reopening border crossing points and restoring rail and road links. Maize shipments to Zambia resumed shortly after the Governor's arrival. Many other binational problems are being discussed by Rhodesian officials with their counterparts.
A growing number of other countries are opening missions in Salisbury and the EEC has agreed, subject to endorsement by the European Parliament, to a special trade regime with Rhodesia with immediate effect. This will be of great assistance in stimulating trade and employment. A start has been made in tackling the refugee problem. An important meeting was held in London on 4 January, attended by Rhodesian officials, the Patriotic Front and representatives of neighbouring countries, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and the ICRC, to discuss arrangements for the return of refugees. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees has agreed to co-ordinate the operation, as I have already said, and has launched an appeal for funds. Work has begun on establishing reception centres and it is hoped that the return will start next week.
Within Rhodesia, former restrictions have been considerably relaxed. A general amnesty has been declared. The cases of all detainees are being reviewed. All those formerly detained on the basis of ministerial orders have been released,

the final lot this afternoon. Martial law courts have been suspended and martial law itself will be lifted when the ceasefire is fully effective. These are significant achievements.
It is important that we air the problems. I am not complaining about that. I hope, however, that Opposition Members, especially those who have dwelt upon the problems, will also reflect on the improvements in the situation, particularly when contrasted with that which prevailed before.
Of course, many difficult problems remain to be tackled. There is evidence of serious breaches of the ceasefire agreement by Mr. Mugabe's forces, in particular the extent of cross-border movement since the ceasefire came into effect. There is also the question of the detainees still being held by Mr. Mugabe's party in Mozambique. There are some 70 former senior members of ZANU in detention. They have applied to us to secure their release so that they can take part in the elections. Their release is required by the Lancaster House agreements. It is urgent not only on humanitarian grounds but because several political parties in Rhodesia wish to nominate them to stand in the elections, for which nominations close on 21 January.
We have made representations to Mr. Mugabe on this subject, so far without result. It is intolerable that political figures of any party should be prevented from taking part in the elections. The Government take the view that there is a responsibility on Mr. Mugabe to release these detainees so that they, too, can benefit from the settlement.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Mr. Alexander W. Lyon rose—

Mr. Luce: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. If he wishes to raise a subject, I shall try to deal with it at the end of the debate. I should like to complete my remarks to allow time for other hon. Members to speak. That is only fair.
At the meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government in Lusaka, the Government agreed to bring Rhodesia to legal independence on the basis of free and fair elections. No one should underestimate the extraordinarily difficult task that confronts the Governor in carrying out this obligation. There will inevitably


be charges of bias from both sides, and there are such charges every day from both sides, but we are determined to hold elections in which all parties can take part on an equal footing. The Governor will be impartial.
We have agreed to shoulder this burden. We look to our friends in the Commonwealth to give us their support in this exciting challenge of bringing peace and independence to Rhodesia. Lord Soames and his team are doing a terrific job. I am sure that the whole House will support him and wish them well.
The next six weeks until elections will be a crucial time, but if all parties abide strictly by the agreements reached at Lancaster House the Government are confident that the difficulties ahead can be successfully negotiated and the elections held under peaceful conditions. The record so far should encourage us for the future. I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Edward Rowlands: As the Minister said, the order is vitally important. It is the order through which the powers of the Governor to arrange and prepare for elections are given by the House as well as the vital duty, on which we have not dwelt, to establish a new Government after the election has been completed. Article 3 of the order is crucial. It is of monumental significance in that the Governor has to arrange the election.
In the successful exercise of the powers he is given, the Governor has to establish the essential preconditions for fair and free elections. Many of the questions that my hon. Friends will be asking during the debate will centre on this point. The first of the preconditions is the establishment, as the Minister has mentioned, of a ceasefire and its maintenance. Without the maintenance of a ceasefire, the elections will be held in most difficult and potentially horrifying circumstances.
The second precondition that has to be established is the basis on which all the parties will have free and equal opportunities to campaign during the course of the elections. That is a factor that the Minister did not mention, but I shall take it up.
We noted yesterday the Lord Privy Seal's assessment of the progress of the

ceasefire. We pay tribute to all those who have taken part in the move to get this far. Substantial progress has been made. There have been many achievements. It was an extremely difficult situation. The parties concerned were scattered and had been fighting each other. In many instances they had been in the bush for a long time. Tribute must be paid to many, including the Patriotic Front commanders, for having played a part in the success that has been achieved.
Surely we are entitled to ask questions and to probe. The House must be vigilant. There are British troops involved. The House has a role and a responsibility. We do not question and probe in the spirit of negative criticism or with a will to get issues out of proportion. We recognise that the problems are our responsibility. We have to deal with the problems as well as acknowledge the achievements.
The Government have our prayers and support in trying to achieve the task with which they are faced. It is vital that we maintain the trust, support and good will of all parties. The Foreign Secretary and the Government generally have to have the support and good will of the key neighbouring Governments and Heads of State who played such an intrinsic and essential part in the success of the Lancaster House conference. It is against that background and in those circumstances that we direct our attention to the presence of South African troops.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) has challenged the Government on the decision that has led to the presence of South African troops. The Government—presumably in the form of the Foreign Secretary—must have given their authorisation. I shall be grateful if the Government spokesman confirms in his reply that the Foreign Secretary authorised the decision for South African troops to remain. Surely it was a fundamental error of judgment and principle.

Mr. Robert Adley: I am trying to understand the Opposition's position. Presumably they do not want the Rhodesian security forces and/or the Patriotic Front to guard the Rhodesian side of the bridge. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I am trying to ascertain the Opposition's position. Do they want the Rhodesian security


forces or the Patriotic Front to guard the Rhodesian side of the bridge? The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) has indicated that he wants the British Army to perform that role. What is the position?

Mr. Rowlands: We must persuade the Government to talk to—or to send instructions, a directive or advice to—the Governor to change what we consider to be an unfortunate and sad judgment concerning the South African troops.
We reacted strongly to the rather flippant dismissal of our objections and representations by the Lord Privy Seal yesterday. A categoric, unequivocal and unconditional assurance was given to the House on 18 December which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition recalled a few minutes ago. However, of equal importance is the fact that the Foreign Secretary gave an unequivocal assurance at the Lancaster House conference on 5 December that South African troops would leave. It was only that assurance that broke the deadlock on the ceasefire negotiations at Lancaster House.
On 5 December the conference was deadlocked on fundamental issues concerning the ceasefire. The key that unlocked the deadlock was the categoric statement by the Foreign Secretary that there would be no South African troops in Rhodesia.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Is the hon. Member aware that it is equally true that in the other place the Foreign Secretary gave an unequivocal assurance of the kind the hon. Gentleman has described to my noble Friend Lord Lambert?

Mr. Rowlands: The record is clear for all to read. I was referring to part of the record that is not known—that at the conference on 5 December it was this categorical assurance that broke the deadlock on the ceasefire. That is why Mr. Mugabe and Mr. Nkomo attached such importance to it, as well as to the intrinsic argument about the presence of foreign troops in a British colony under a British Governor.
It is wrong for the Minister and the Lord Privy Seal to dismiss this issue as minor. It is not minor if it raises anger, fear and concern in the minds of the front-line Presidents and causes them to meet and issue a strong statement, so that we are in danger of losing some of their

good will and support. The Minister did not reply to the question put by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. The decision was criticised by Mr. Mugabe and Mr. Nkomo. It was not taken with their approval.
What is curious is that we are told that the number of troops is small. Surely it is not beyond the capacity of the British forces or the forces of our Commonwealth friends to carry out the task. I am sure that the Kenyans would happily assist. Apparently a small number of troops is causing this incredible distrust and concern, which is justifiable and understandable.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I well understand the feelings that the hon. Gentleman is expressing. I know that they are shared fairly widely among the people in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. The hon. Member has looked at the bridge and so have I. It is difficult to guard half a bridge. One set of legs is on one side and one set is on the other. Having seen the bridge, it is perfectly clear to me that one lot of troops is required to guard the bridge rather than two.

Mr. Rowlands: There are some remarkable examples of bridges being guarded by troops of two factions. One of my hon. Friends has just reminded me of the bridges between Jordan and Israel. There cannot be a more difficult problem of security than that, but those bridges are guarded by the respective sovereign Powers.
The Minister said that the matter is under constant review. I think it is time that a decision was made requesting the South African troops to leave. They should be replaced now by alternative troops, whether Commonwealth forces, British forces or any combination that the Governor may decide.
Whose command are these troops under? Are they under the command of the Governor or of the South African military? Is not the position that these troops are on colonial territory but not under the command of the Governor of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia? If they are not under his command, our objection is heightened, because that means that the troops answer to the South African military. Whatever trust we might have of


Lord Soames, we have no trust of the South African military commanders.
The second point I would like to make is this. The conduct of free and fair elections depends upon an organised campaign and a good opportunity to organise that campaign. It is necessary to have the printing materials, transportation and the variety of practical things that we normally have during an election campaign. We are all experienced hands. Under our system, he who comes first grabs the lot, but in the extraordinary circumstances in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, where the military, commercial and bureaucratic systems fully support one party in the coming elections, it is the duty of the Governor and the election commissioner to ensure that there is full and equal opportunity to carry out an election campaign.
There was an example last weekend. News reports inform us that when Mr. Nkomo returned home no loudspeaker equipment was made available to him. That is the sort of petty and nasty inequality which must be removed if conditions for free and fair elections in Rhodesia are to be created.
My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) raised the crucial question of the role of the Rhodesian security forces and, more important, the auxiliaries who are roaming around the countryside and seem to be exercising considerable power in the enforcement of the ceasefire. Throughout the constitutional conference, the fundamental principle of the ceasefire was that the respective commanders and their forces should be responsible for their own discipline.
Did the Governor authorise the Rhodesian security force to shoot seven guerrillas in a bus when they refused to stop? Was that an authorised act, or are Rhodesian security forces and, more frighteningly, auxiliaries roaming the countryside exercising their own discipline or indiscipline over the ceasefire arrangements? If so, that is contrary to the basis of the Lancaster House agreement.
These issues are of vital importance. I am delighted that the Minister has said that the Government will support the idea of a parliamentary commission to observe the elections. That is a vital role for the House, and we shall have a role in

the vigilant obeservation and scrutiny of the actions of the Foreign Secretary and the Governor in what we all accept is a difficult period and a difficut task. I pray every night for the Governor's success and for a clear cut and successful outcome to the elections so that Zimbabwe can have true independence and a sovereign Government that we can all support.

Mr. Iain Mills: It is sad to see that when the Government are making history the Opposition are acting like one of the Rhodesian baboons that those of us who lived in Rhodesia can recognise. It is an unfortunately hairy and ugly creature which is fond of searching through his hair for any flea or nit to pick.
The creation by the Government of the chance of peace in Rhodesia surely must be welcomed. Surely, the presence of a few South African troops must be seen as one of the small imperfections that can occur when one is making history. Have Labour Members in Government never had to accept an imperfection when making a change that has defied Government after Government? The only comments that they make resemble the actions of the Rhodesian baboon.
I am surprised at the remarks of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands). He has seen the bridge and knows the difficulties. If he were a South African, would he not be concerned to protect a bridge that was in military terms an extremely difficult target?

Mr. Russell Johnston: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that there is likely to be a military push across the bridge into South Africa?

Mr. Mills: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the bridge? Does he realise how vulnerable it is? It is a spidery construction of metal. One tiny bomb would destroy it. Do Opposition Members realise the extraordinary vulnerability of that link across Africa? I suspect from their laughter that they do not. They are denigrating themselves by making the comments they make about the Government. It is a very precious thing that this Government have created.
I shall make only two other points. It is easy for us, understanding the complex way in which we run our elections.


where we have committee rooms and can telephone local councils to arrange the whole structure, to imagine that that is possible in and can be imposed upon Rhodesia. As one who lived there for 12 years, may I assure all hon. Members that it is a vast territory, where the standard of literacy is such that one's posters and pamphlets will not be read by many millions of one's constituents. So how on earth can the same sort of judgment be made as is made here, on British standards?
It has to be said that the noble Lord who is looking after the affairs there has gone an enormously long way towards achieving some form of democracy. Hon. Gentlemen may laugh, but I can assure them that history will remember their mockery as being the least helpful and the least positive contribution to what is indeed a step towards democracy in Africa.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I wish only to ask three questions, but before doing so I respond to what the Minister said by emphasising that certainly from this Bench we greatly appreciate what has been achieved and greatly hope that it will be successful.
My first question refers to Beitbridge. I do not think it is necessary to expand the question, but what puzzles me about the whole thing is that it really is a terribly small matter. The Minister said we must get things into proportion. If it is a question of getting things into proportion, let me recall that the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) indicated that this was a small and fragile bridge and could be blown up. We know that it is the main supply line through which the food is being pumped up to the assembly points, and, therefore, it is very important that it be kept open. But why create a situation in which there is an affront to the frontline States and objection is created when really it is a simple matter of a very small force? Perhaps the Minister will indicate how many people are required to guard the bridge, because I do not understand why it is necessary to have South Africans on one side of the river rather than the other. I find this very difficult to understand.
My second question concerns a matter to which the Minister referred—the fact that something like 75 to 80 ZANU peo-

ple are still confined in Mozambique and that he is engaged in making representations to Mr. Mugabe in this regard. Since he has already referred to this, perhaps he may not be able to say any more about it, but I certainly say to him that we on this Bench regard this as a very important matter. Clearly, it is very important to all sides that all those who wish to participate in the election should be able to do so.
On this point, may I ask what legal representation, or what sort of representation, if any, is available to those within Rhodesia whom the Governor decides he cannot release? I am not sure how many people this refers to, but it must refer to a number and I should be interested to know what sort of appeal they have in that situation.
My third and last point refers to something which, despite the intervention of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) from the Opposition Front Bench, is still not very clear to me. The Minister referred to the fact that a small number—I think he said a group—from this House would be able to go to monitor or witness the elections. It is not clear to me exactly what this means, how the group is to be chosen, when it is to go, who is to go or how the question is to be decided. It would be very helpful to the House and to a third party which is not part of the normal channels to know this.

11 pm

Mr. Robert Adley: I have never previously dared to speak in a debate on Rhodesia. For 10 years I have listened to almost all the debates on this subject. On several occasions I have been at variance with my constituents, many of whom have regarded me as a dangerous Left-winger in the line I have taken. I have watched with frustration, anger and despair what has happened since UDI, and my overwhelming feeling this evening is of relief and thanks that at last a way seems to have been found out of this impasse. On this occasion I make my first and perhaps my last remarks on Rhodesia, shortly to be Zimbabwe.
To bring 20,000 armed guerrillas out of the bush, men who had fought for what they believed in for a long time with total dedication, who now have sufficient confidence in the arrangements that have been


made voluntarily and peacefully to come into Rhodesia and assemble as agreed, is an achievement which we would be very foolish to underestimate. A debate on an order like this would have seemed incredible just a few months ago.
Labour Members have questioned the presence of South African troops. I understand the fragility of the agreement and the reasons which give rise to the expression of concern about anything which might destroy the agreement which has been reached. But, in my humility, I am prepared to accept that the judgment of Lord Soames is probably rather better than mine because he is on the spot.
I hope that Opposition Members will not take it amiss when I say that we have to look at the judgment of the Governor against the judgment of Opposition Members and what they have been saying over the past 15 years. I remember the headline "Bomber Thorpe". The Liberal Party's solution was to bomb its way out of the problem. I remember the attitude of some Left-wing members of the Labour Party. I can only describe it as hatred towards the white population. It was not attractive to behold from the Benches opposite, even though some of my hon. Friends had precious little sympathy with the illegal Government that was declared after UDI.
It would be nice to think that the full and free democratic elections that we hope will shortly take place in Rhodesia might occasionally happen in the country of which President Nyerere is presently the head.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware—

Mr. Adley: I shall not give way. I am making a few short remarks as simply as I can.
On the subject of South African troops and the arrangements announced by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, I understood him to mean that he would not tolerate any intervention by foreign troops on Rhodesian soil after sanctions had been lifted and the country had been returned to legality. There is a difference between intervention and invitation. I understood him to mean that we would not tolerate anyone we did not want there. Presumably, if the Governor is satisfied—he is not an unintelligent man—that,

in spite of the obvious public relations difficulties that the presence of South African troops could cause, that is a risk worth taking, it is one that the House should also be prepared to take.
I offer my thanks and congratulations to the Government and, through the Front Bench, to the Governor, our forces, the Patriotic Front and all the peoples of Rhodesia, of whatever colour. I wish them success and hope that the orders that we are putting through the House tonight will be the first step to the creation of a country which will not only have one election but might even—unlike many of its neighbours—have elections in the future.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: I shall concentrate on the detailed electoral arrangements which article 3 of the order empowers the Governor to make. I think we all agree that we place a heavy responsibility upon the Governor to ensure that free and fair elections take place.
During the Committee stage of the Southern Rhodesia Bill on 12 November 1979, I pointed out what I believed to be some of the unfair aspects of the elections that took place in Rhodesia in April 1979. I expressed the hope that the forthcoming elections would be held on a different basis. So far, I do not think that that hope has been greatly fulfilled, because most of the arrangements have been a fair copy of what took place last April, except, of course, that there will be eight additional seats for the common roll constituencies. These are being allocated in accordance with better estimates of the population in the various electoral districts, with two more seats going to the Mashonaland West constituency, where there was a serious underestimate of population for the elections last April.
However, the absence of an electoral register means that it is still possible for any voter in Zimbabwe to choose the electoral district in which he shall vote in the common roll elections. The way is open for the political parties to transport their committed supporters to districts where their votes may have greater strategic impact. That is what happened last April and it looks as if it may well happen again.
My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) indicated to the House on 12 December that all the available buses in


Rhodesia had been booked up by Bishop Muzorewa's party for the period right through to next March. Such use of transport would be blatantly unfair.
I think that the Under-Secretary of State must give us some idea of what limitations are being put on the expenditure on transport by the parties in Zimbabwe at next month's elections. More generally, he should tell us what limitations will apply on all expenditure by the parties in the election.
Another feature of the elections last April—which, apparently, it is the Governor's intention to apply at the forthcoming elections—was the requirement that a party must poll at least 10 per cent. in an electoral district before it could be eligible for any seats to be allocated in that district. This 10 per cent. threshold is really in contradiction of the proportional nature of the allocation of seats. It acts unfairly against the smaller parties.
In the coming elections, four of the eight electoral districts have each been allocated more than 10 seats. So the quota, technically called the "Hare quota", to be used in the allocation of seats will be less than the 10 per cent. in those four seats.
For instance in Mashonaland East, which has been allocated 16 seats—and is the district which includes Salisbury—the quota will be 6¼ per cent. But the 10 per cent. threshold will prevent a party from obtaining a seat until its vote is more than half as much again as the quota for that seat. Last April, only two of the electoral districts had this difficulty with more than 10 seats each, so the anomaly arising from the existence of the 10 per cent. threshold is made much more significant in the elections to be held next month.
Under any system of proportional representation—I am not arguing in favour of such systems in general—the existence of a quota should itself be sufficient to avoid the necessity for any threshold. What is more, if there is a threshold such as the 10 per cent. that is recommended—

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will clarify this. Is it not the case that all these details have already been agreed to by the parties at Lancaster House? If that is the case and Mr. Nkomo, Mr. Mugabe and the

others are content, why should we be otherwise than content?

Dr. Marshall: We in this House tonight are being asked to approve an order, and the order says that the Governor is to make arrangements for the elections. This is the opportunity that we have of commenting on those arrangements and suggesting how those arrangements can be improved.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Mr. Douglas Hogg rose—

Dr. Marshall: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman again. He has made his intervention.
The existence of the threshold, coupled with the freedom to transport voters from one district to another, can have two other effects which I think would be undesirable in the interests of fairness in the elections. For instance, a large party may be tempted to swamp a particular district with supporters in order to push smaller parties beneath the threshold in that electoral district. Conversely, the smaller parties, if they have the transport available, will be tempted to concentrate their voters in their best constituency in order to surmount the threshold there.
Therefore, I ask the Under-Secretary to consider very seriously whether we really need the threshold of 10 per cent. It goes against the proportional nature of the elections which are to be held. I hope that it will be possible, even at this late stage—I believe that there is still time for this change to be put into practice during the elections—for the Government to think again and help to bring about fairer elections by doing away with this threshold.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds): I wish to say three things very briefly. First, over many years I have had the privilege, as have many other hon. Members, to go to Rhodesia, and at the moment when it becomes Zimbabwe I am filled with a sense of great relief that it should have happened.
Mr. Joshua Nkomo has been a guest in my home in London. I have been a guest of his in his home in Salisbury. There were times when I came to think that Joshua Nkomo had changed from being a man of peace to being a man of war, but I never really believed it. I am delighted that in Nkomo's case he


has been able to come back to take part in an election and, no doubt, if the votes are cast in the right way, to play some perhaps important part in the future of his country.
The same goes for the many other personalities whom over the years one has come to know, some better than others. Bishop Muzorewa is not the favourite of every Member of this House, perhaps, but he is a man who has served as he thinks right the cause of his people. The same goes for many of the white population. I freely say that I continue to have considerable affection and respect for many of them.
But this is not the time for debating the differences between the various sectors in Rhodesia or Zimbabwe. It is a time for recognising that there is a chance—perhaps only a slim chance, but a realone—to come together. I am sure that the House tonight will want to pass these orders with acclamation and with relief and with good will for the future.
I now turn very briefly to my other two points. As regards, the bridge, I understand full well the anxieties that have been expressed. South African troops have a hagiology in Africa that is all their own. Rightly or wrongly, they possess it. I can well understand the anxieties that have been expressed, but in the end it is a largely practical question. It is a very spidery, metallic structure that reaches across the river. It is not there, as I understand it at the moment, primarily to do the South Africans very much good.
Every day, trains travel across the bridge carrying food that comes from South Africa and goes to feed the people of Zambia. Every day, trains go across that are starting to carry out—for the first time in years—some of the minerals that Zambia needs to sell. It is of crucial importance to Zambia as well as to Rhodesia, although not so much to South Africa, that the bridge should stand.
We can debate ad nauseam the numerous bridges around the world where one set of troops are on one side and another set of troops are on the other. That is true of the bridge over the Jordan and the bridge in Hong Kong. However, I trust that this bridge no longer divides warring parties. Hour by hour and day by day,

the bridge carries minerals and food that are required if the settlement is to stick. Howsoever the Governor has decided to maintain the security of the bridge, at this distance I am prepared to accept that he probably knows best. Of course, he will have heard the views of Mr. Mugabe, Mr. Nkomo and the front-line Presidents, as well as hearing those expressed in the House of Commons tonight.
For many years Lord Soames served in the House and was our colleague. He is not unaware of these matters, but he has had to make a balanced judgment. In the practical sphere, a balanced judgment requires that he takes some conscious risks. However, he no doubt takes the view that the security of the bridge must come first, so that the food and minerals can flow. He cannot take any risks about that.
Like many hon. Members, I have had the good fortune—or perhaps it is the misfortune—to have seen a number of difficult wars. I saw most of them as a correspondent. I shall always remember the Mau Mau in Kenya and the horrors of that. I saw wars in Malaysia, Cyprus, Vietnam and Borneo, but to my knowledge there has never been a case where guerrillas have come out of the bush to lay down their arms. These guerrillas have taken that risk in the face of their enemies. There has never been a case where, in the interests of peace, the security forces have watched the boys come out of the bush, despite all the maiming, killing and horror.
Throughout the history of guerrilla wars—and I have seen a little of it in Cyprus, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Kenya—I never expected to see such a thing or to see it work. I hope and pray that it will work in Rhodesia. The House should wish British soldiers, the British Governor and Rhodesian Zimbabweans of all complexions the very best of fortune.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I have not participated in discussions on Southern Rhodesia before despite my interest in the subject, because the negotiations conducted by the Foreign Secretary caused me to doubt the pace, pressure and tactics that were used from time to time. I thought that the broad thrust of those negotiations was right and that it was right to bring the parties together. It was right to guide them towards putting


their differences to the test of the ballot rather than that of the bullet. It was right to put the parties in a context where the arguments between them had to be fought at a political level rather in a military fashion.
The problem that now arises and faces us with tonight's order concerns the provisions that were included as a result of the negotiations. It appears that it was more important to get an agreement and to complete the negotiations successfully than to provide effectively for what came after. We are now in the danger that the chickens may come home to roost.
There are three crucial problems. First, there is the speed at which the elections, which we are in part providing for tonight, have to be carried through. The date was fixed and the haste was brought about because of the negotiations. It is impossible for the parties to organise effectively in the period provided. We are asking these people to transform themselves from military organisations into political machines in far too short a period. They have to change guns into canvass cards. They have to reach out with these machines into the remotest regions of a country that has been war-torn and in parts still is. Many of the roads are mined and there are horrendous problems of communication. The requirement was always too tight, and delaying the arrival in Salisbury of Mugabe and Nkomo made it even more difficult. Far too tight a timetable has been imposed on the elections.
Secondly, there is a lack of back-up provided for the Governor. The monitoring force is far too small effectively to do the huge job asked of it, and the administrative back-up is pathetically small. There is a lack of effective control by the Governor over the media and the Rhodesian Broadcasting Corporation in particular, which has effectively been the machinery of propaganda. It is being asked to transform itself overnight into something totally different and to run an impartial campaign over the election period. It was as if Dr. Goebbels at the end of the war had been asked to take over Radio 4 and run it as a traditional impartial service. The lack of control over that machinery of propaganda is a serious weakness.
More important is the lack of backing and independent advice for the Governor,

and there has been a failure to provide him with his own administrative machine. We have effectively sent the noble Lord naked into the conference chamber—and that is not a pretty image or a pretty situation. The levers of power are still in the hands of those who have been controlling them throughout the rebellion. The Governor is far too dependent on their advice, efforts, surveys of the security situation and use of force. The Governor not only has to be fair but has to be seen to be fair. How can he be when the security forces are still out, still in action and still killing?
The report of the constitutional conference provides that the role of the military forces of both sides in the interim period will be to maintain the ceasefire. Why is one side allowed to maintain that ceasefire with armed force while the other is not? It is not an impartial administration. It cannot be impartial when only a matter of minutes averted an air strike to blast laggard guerrillas, who were in a delicate negotiation over putting down their arms, out of their camp. We are in a dangerous situation if that is the narrowness with which risk was averted.
The number of auxiliaries has been estimated at up to 20,000, and I should be interested to have an estimate from the Minister. They are effectively nothing more than armed bully boys, who are operating out of control. Who is monitoring the auxiliaries and what are they allowed to do?
How can the force be impartial with South African troops controlling the bridge? In all the arguments from the Government Benches, no one has mentioned the time at which South African troops began to control both sides of the bridge. I crossed that bridge in 1975, and Rhodesian troops controlled one side and South African troops the other, and that was in a period of guerrilla war. It was not necessary then, in a period of armed insurrection, for South African troops to control the whole of the bridge. Why is it necessary now, and who is monitoring the South African troops? Whoever controls the bridge controls the road, the railway and the country round about. What is the sphere of operations of those troops, and who is monitoring them?
How can it be impartial? We have a Governor advised not only by the


Rhodesian public service but by General Walls and his security services, and, indeed, dependent on them. This is not what it should be, which is an independent assertion of British influence. The more the situation is dependent on that kind of advice, from those who have controlled the levers of power up to now, the more it is in danger of being seen as a ratification of the people who have run the machine up to now.
The pattern of behaviour, so far as one reads it in press reports of the noble Lord—who, one would have thought, would have been a man to show a pugnacious independence—has been quiescent and muted, as if his main aim has been to get it over with and to get out as quickly as possible.
On the question of elections, we have had no satisfactory answer on the control of expenses. Given the financial resources backing the UAMC, what control is there to be over election expenses? We have had no satisfactory answers on the impartiality of the broadcasting service and on the control of transport, so much of which seems to have been bought up already. Yet it is crucial to a successful election operation. We are handing control to those who organised the last test of opinion, with all its unsatisfactory aspects.
The success of the noble Lord in getting this over and done with depends on his independence now. He is in the very dangerous situation of a tight-rope artiste. It is crucial that a tight-rope walker should lean neither to the right nor the left but should stay absolutely upright and be impartial between the sides. The indications coming out are that that is not happening.
The last imponderable is the nature of the pull-out at the end, because that was always to be the most crucial and difficult aspect of the operation. We are providing for it in part tonight in the order. The dangers are that, with the weighting of the electoral system to the white seats, to form a government a party will have to get 60 per cent. of the votes. In other words, the parties are set a virtually impossible and insurmountable hurdle, particularly if the Patriotic Front stands separately in two groups or breaks up
We shall therefore be faced with negotiations for a coalition, in which the

parties to those negotiations are armed, in which they are two sets of security forces, both of which have shown nothing more than a sulky acquiescence in what has happened because they hoped they would come out on top, with conflict still to be fought out and with politicians who do not trust each other enough to work together. In that situation, we seem to be providing for the quickest pull-out, which could produce an extremely dangerous situation unless it is handled with more determination and independence now and more willingness to see the operation through and more determination to see Britain's responsibilities fulfilled than one detects in the proceedings to date.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I have spent some time putting forward a position which was not that of my party leadership. For a time I seem to have been plumb in the middle of its policy. I suspect that one or two of my remarks this evening may disqualify me from the Rhodesia bus for the trip which goes out in a month's time.
I would say to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that the list of achievements which our right hon. Friend gave yesterday and some of the extra points that my hon. Friend has made this evening show that the risk of the conference was worth taking, that pressure during the conference was effective, that the work of the Governor in Rhodesia and of the parties there has led on to rather more hope for relatively free and fair elections and that there is a relatively greater chance of peace after the election when Rhodesia becomes independent than I for one expected at any time up to now.
Other things can be said—for example, that prohibited immigrants have been left off the list. A number of people have been allowed to return to Rhodesia who had previously been excluded. I welcome that. It is also important to recognise—I hope it is right—that the sharing of election broadcasting has been agreed between the parties. That, again, I welcome as a sign of co-operation between the parties. I come next to a point upon which there might not be general agreement. I find the present South African troops on the Rhodesian side at Beitbridge slightly curious, unless the Governor has also chosen to invite the


Zambians to stay on the Rhodesian side of the Zambian border and Mozambique troops on the Rhodesian side of their border. However, the Governor's judgment may be better than mine, and he will have more information than I have. It would be interesting to hear whether the arrangement with the South Africans is to continue. It might also be interesting to hear from the South Africans themselves whether the arrangement is at their request and initiative or at someone else's.
I do not think that this question is of great military significance, but it is of political significance. I do not expect the issue to be sorted out immediately, but I hope that by the time Rhodesia becomes independent there will be no question of South African troops being on the Rhodesian side of the Beitbridge or, if it is likely to be proposed by the South Africans or the newly elected Government in Zimbabwe, of Zimbabwe being allowed to have its troops on the South African side of the bridge.
I am a great believer in fairness and the balance of power. Whether a bridge is spidery or not, the balance of power is important for political reasons. I hope that, even if my hon. Friend cannot deal with this matter this evening, he will make sure that the general issue is dealt with, preferably before elections and certainly before independence.

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Mr. Luce.

Mr. Luce: If I am to fulfil my undertaking to endeavour to answer points raised in the debate, I should seek the leave of the House to reply at this stage—

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood from the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) that there was agreement between the two Front Benches that as the orders were to be taken separately the debate could extend for three hours and there would be licence about its scope. It would therefore be more appropriate if the Minister were to speak at the end of the second debate in reply to a

much broader discussion. Surely, that would meet the needs of the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was not here when the announcement to which the hon. Gentleman refers was made, but it is clear that the orders are quite separate. The Minister cannot reply to this debate at the end of the next debate. That will be on a completely different subject.
Whilst I am on my feet, I should like to point out that the next order is very limited and deals only with the National Bank of Rhodesia.

Mr. Luce: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps I may now seek to answer some of the points that have been raised.
When I introduced the order, I said that certain hon. Members were constantly referring to problems. I do not complain about that. As the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) rightly said, the House has every right—I should be in deep trouble if I tried to complain about it—to probe the activities of the Executive and of the Governor. The Government are accountable on this matter, and it is my task to endeavour to answer the points.
I in no way underestimate the importance of the issues that hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised. I was seeking to say only that in the context of what has been a war lasting seven years we should, perhaps, from time to time remind ourselves of the achievements, and I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House for their contributions this evening. I am grateful for the tribute paid by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil to the contribution of all parties at Lancaster House to reaching a successful conclusion and to the Governor for the work he is doing.
It is a fact of life that it is easy to criticise and much more difficult to build and construct, which is what we are all trying to do. That is the point I was seeking to make.
The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) asked about the arrangements for parliamentarians to which I referred in opening. The British Government propose that a small number of Members of Parliament of all parties and both Houses should be given facilities by the Government to go to Rhodesia and


observe the elections. We have still to make arrangements through the usual channels. We shall have discussions to see what plans can be drawn up.
We can provide facilities for only a small number. Perhaps many other hon. Members will wish to go to Rhodesia of their own accord. Of course, the Governor will do his best to co-operate with those who wish to do that. He will do his best to provide them with facilities out there, but his resources are already heavily stretched. There is a large number of Commonwealth observers. A whole mass of members of the world press will be there. There are clearly limitations to the Governor's practical ability to provide facilities and assist hon. Members who do not come into the special category.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Members who make up the parliamentary commission should be those who have not campaigned actively for one of the parties taking part in the election?

Mr. Luce: I am sure that the usual channels will note my hon. Friend's contribution. These facilities having been offered, it is not for me or the Government but for the usual channels to discuss these matters and suggest how the final arrangements should be made. But I thought it would be helpful to tell the House the position.
Several hon. Members raised questions about the balance in the media and the free and balanced access to the media of all the parties during the election. Of course, this is a singularly important matter. It was raised on a number of occasions in the debates in November and December. We have very much taken on board some of the suggestions made from both sides of the House.
Earlier this week, the election commissioner announced that all political parties—there are 10 registered parties now in Rhodesia—would have equal access to the media. That assurance has also been given by the authorities that run the media there. In order to ensure that there is fair balance in the presentation in the media of the political opinions of all the parties, the BBC has sent out an adviser, who has been there for the past few days, to meet the Governor and

give advice on how this can be fairly achieved. I hope that the House will welcome that.
A number of hon. Members raised questions about electoral procedures. For example, the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall), who clearly has a deep knowledge of the proportional representation system, is very anxious to seek clarification of the method that is to be used. The bulk of the constitution and its main principles were agreed at Lancaster House, but for the purposes of this election much of the existing electoral law of Rhodesia is available to the Governor and the election commissioner to use at their discretion. It is still for the commissioner to determine the guidelines on certain election procedures. I shall ensure that he takes note of the hon. Gentleman's points—for example, about the 10 per cent. threshold. The threshold is not unique to Rhodesia; many proportional representation systems have it. I shall make sure that the point gets across to the election commissioner and I shall give the hon. Member a full reply to it by letter in due course, as well as replies on the other points that have been raised by other hon. Members on electoral procedures.
I reiterate that the main objective of the Governor's presence, supported by the election commissioner, is to ensure that in the present conditions of Rhodesia we can hold free and fair elections. Every day, that point must be uppermost in the Governor's mind.

Mr. Robert Hughes: What is the Governor doing about the auxiliary forces that are at present said to be guarding the protected villages and which open up, on a massive scale, the possibility of intimidation by private armies? Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that the forces will be withdrawn from the villages so that people can have freedom of movement?

Mr. Luce: I remind the House that the auxiliary forces, as part of the Rhodesian security forces, are under the authority of the Governor. Any complaints about the activities of any of the security forces are referred to the ceasefire commission. There have been a few complaints about the auxiliary forces which are being investigated by the commission. The commission, as I have


already told the House, meets twice a week.
In introducing the order, I endeavoured to give way to hon. Members about the anxieties that were expressed about foreign intervention and the South African troops at the Beit bridge.

Mr. Dobson: Mr. Dobson rose—

Mr. Luce: I have only one minute left.
I know that there is anxiety in the House about this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), in a contribution with which almost all hon. Members would concur, said that it is up to the Governor at the end of the day to make a judgment as to how he can secure law and order and ensure that there are free and fair conditions for the elections. In answer to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil, I should say that my right hon. and noble Friend will give the necessary authorisation, and I stress again that the issue is under review. At the end of the day, the success of the operation will depend on the good will of all parties. I believe that we have every chance of succeeding.

Mr. Robert Hughes: We do not have time tonight to rehearse the arguments about Rhodesia, but this Government did not create the ceasefire. The conditions for the elections were fought for by the Patriotic Front.
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Southern Rhodesia (Constitution of Zimbabwe) (Elections and Appointments) Order 1979 (S.I., 1979, No. 1654), a copy of which was laid before this House on 13 December, be approved.

RHODESIA (LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND PUBLIC LIABILITIES)

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Richard Luce): I beg to move,
That the Southern Rhodesia (Legal Proceedings and Public Liabilities) Order 1979 (S.I., 1979, No. 1601), a copy of which was laid before this House on 7 December, be approved.
I am in the hands of the House, but perhaps I should give an explanation of the background to the order. It is a matter of judgment as to how full an explanation the House would like.
The Southern Rhodesia (Legal Proceedings and Public Liabilities) Order 1979 deals with some of the consequences of the lapse on 15 November last year of section 2 of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 and of certain Orders in Council made under that section. It also deals with some of the consequences of unconstitutional action in Southern Rhodesia during the past 14 years.
Following the unilateral declaration of independence in November 1965, the Reserve Bank of Rhodesia Order 1965 was made to establish a board of the Reserve Bank in London in place of the Salisbury board. The Reserve Bank Order 1967 substituted a governor and trustee for the board. The purpose of both orders was, inter alia, to deny the illegal authorities in Rhodesia control over Rhodesian funds in London and certain other centres and to safeguard those funds against a return to legality.
Those who served on the London board and as governor and trustee have carried out their duties over a long period with care, skill and dedication. The purpose of article 2(1) of the Legal Proceedings and Public Liabilities Order is to confirm the validity of their actions over that period and those of others who acted in the affairs of the bank on the directions of a Secretary of State and to protect them from any liability. I am confident that the House will agree that such protection, for actions which were, of course, undertaken at the request of the Government, is fully called for.
A number of other provisions of the Legal Proceedings and Public Liabilities Order are concerned with the liabilities of the Government of Southern Rhodesia


in respect of its stock or the stock of the former Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland for which Southern Rhodesia assumed responsibility.
As the House will be aware, no payments were made after December 1965 by the illegal regime to the United Kingdom stockholders. Article 3(1) of the order will enable legal proceedings in respect of such stock to be instituted notwithstanding that the usual limitation period for such proceedings has expired. Article 5 limits the liability of the registrars and of the trustees of the sinking funds of Southern Rhodesian Government stocks. They can be required to satisfy judgments for payment of interest or redemption money on such stock only from any moneys of the Government of Southern Rhodesia which they hold in respect of the stock in question and not from any other funds held on behalf of the Government of Southern Rhodesia.

Mr. Edward Rowlands: Will the Minister say, in order that we may gain some perspective, how much money is owed to stockholders in this country?

Mr. Luce: The broad estimate available to us is about£45 million. The number of stockholders is difficult to establish. We think that it could be more than 15,000.
Article 6 lays down that where there is any inconsistency between registers of stock kept in the United Kingdom and in Rhodesia, the registers kept in the United Kingdom are to prevail.
The remaining substantive provisions are concerned more generally with debts and liabilities. Article 3(2) provides a Period of six months after the commencement of the order for the bringing of other actions in the United Kingdom against the Crown in right of Southern Rhodesia, even where the relevant period of limitation has expired.
Paragraph 3 of article 3 is designed to ensure that the claims of Rhodesia's creditors are satisfied in an orderly manner. The power to decide how to apply any moneys received since the lapse of sanctions on account of the Government of Southern Rhodesia for the settlement of Rhodesia's existing debts is vested in The Secretary of State, and the respon-

sibility will rest on him to see that claims are satisfied in an equitable manner.
Article 4 of the order deals with payments made in discharge of Rhodesia's liabilities during the period since UDI. The order validates such payments and provides for evidencing entries made in registers kept in Rhodesia.
The order is a necessary piece of tidying up, consequent upon the lapse of section 2 of the 1965 Act and Rhodesia's return to legality. In moving its adoption by the House, I should inform hon. Members that the Rhodesian Ministry of Finance has given a clear acknowledgment of Rhodesian liability for pre-UDI debt and of the importance of meeting debt service and arrears of capital redemption and interest. The timing and distribution of service payments will be the subject of official discussions with the Government of Zimbabwe after independence.
I hope that with this explanation the House will see fit to approve the order.

Mr. Peter Emery: I shall not detain the House for long, but I wish to ask three direct questions concerning the banking and personnel side of the order.
I cannot allow this moment to pass without casting my mind back to 1965 when I sat on the Opposition Benches behind the Dispatch Box from which the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) was speaking on the previous order. I recall the first statutory instrument introduced at that time by the hon. Gentleman's Government dealing with sanctions. The Prime Minister of the day, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), was present in the Chamber for that debate. I remember being able to draw him to his feet. I asked him for how long the statutory instrument was likely to apply. We had the famous reply—I do not use the right hon. Gentleman's exact words—"Well, months rather than years, and we hope weeks rather than months."
We consider the measures before us 15 years later. Hon Members on both sides of the House have striven to reach a position to enable such measures to be introduced. The achievement of the Government, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary in getting us this far


has been tremendous. Thank goodness they have been able to do so.
The Minister will know that since UDI many payments of savings and bank balances have been blocked. Those concerned have been unable to have their funds transferred from Rhodesia to the United Kingdom. That has often meant considerable hardship. Often considerable savings, if not all their reserves, have been made unavailable to them. As I have said, 15 years have passed. Many who have had to suffer hardship are retired. They expect to be able to rely on their moneys in Rhodesia.
Secondly, there are those who served Rhodesia as civil servants or with the police forces. They found that pension payments were blocked. More specifically, widows' pension payments out of Rhodesia to the United Kingdom were blocked. Again, considerable hardship has been suffered. Some of my constituents have been in that position.
The persons to whom I have referred have suffered great hardship. How quickly can they expect to be able to have at least part of their funds—I should like all their funds to be released—made available to them? I ask my hon. Friend to try to ensure that those who are entitled to smaller sums are dealt with first before the larger sums are released to corporations and other interested parties. It is those who have a claim to smaller sums who should be given relief first. I accept that it would be easier in banking terms to release funds to large accounts.
The Minister will know that I have raised with my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal the case of an individual who it is believed was captured by guerrilla forces who were responsible to Mr. Mugabe. He was abducted across the border into Mozambique. A number of people are in that position. Many of them are black Rhodesians but a number are white. It is generally believed that the abductees are probably alive if they entered Mozambique without being attacked by Rhodesian forces. However, it is not known whether certain individuals are alive. Since the ceasefire there has been no news of them. I have had personal information from President Machel that, although it was entirely contrary to the instructions of guerrilla leaders, local captains often liked to

prove what they were able to achieve by bringing certain white abductees across the border, even contrary to their own commands.
Will the Minister ensure that the Governor takes up these few cases with alacrity, even at this busy time? There are families and wives who are suffering and who do not know whether their sons or husbands are alive. If they are alive, these people would do everything they could to try to bring their loved ones back to their homes either in Rhodesia or here in the United Kingdom.
I know that these are personal matters, but it would be of great assistance if the Minister could give an assurance that Lord Soames will have some of his staff investigate them. They could perhaps contact President Machel to see what might be done about conducting an investigation of the border area so that we might know the fate of these few white Rhodesians. I am sure that the whole House wants to do what it can to ensure that these matters are dealt with.
During the difficult period when these orders will be operating, we need to give all the support that is possible to the Governor and General Acland—a constituent of mine—and his troops. They are carrying out a difficult task and I—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is expressing the sentiments of the House, but what he is saying has little to do with the order.

Mr. Emery: I will revert to the order. It is imperative that the military shall ensure that the proceedings under paragraph 3 of the order are property carried out. I hope that we can stop the petty harping about this or any subsequent orders. We often exaggerate things in the House, which makes the task of those actually on the ground that much more difficult.
Therefore, I hope that we can achieve agreement between both sides of the House when dealing with this or any subsequent orders.

Mr. Iain Mills: I ask your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House for speaking again this evening. I want to deal briefly with one


or two technical points under paragraph 3 of the order—
Proceedings against, and liabilities of, Southern Rhodesia Government"—
in connection with public and private sector pensions. I ask my hon. Friend not to reply tonight, but merely to note that I consider this to be a matter of some concern.
During the period after UDI, in the public sector, contributions were deducted from an employee's salary and went to the revenue of the country so that when pensions became payable they were payable from revenue. Under the constitution of 1979, which is now outlawed, there was some guarantee, not only that pensions in the public sector would be paid, but that they could be externally remitted. That is an important point when one considers the political changes expected in that country. It is particularly important for retired elderly people who may well feel that they do not want to live in Rhodesia under a new political regime.
What is of more concern is the private sector where, by Government legislation similar to our own, private pensions have to be funded by a properly constituted fund and are backed by the local registrar. Given a responsible Government locally, which we hope for, there should be no problem in guaranteeing security, but in the 1979 constitution considerable care was taken, after lobbying, to ensure that some degree of security, if not similar security, could be given to the private sector pensioners and future pensioners both in the payment of their pensions and, though unfortunately not in total, to external remittability.
I shall come rapidly to the crunch of this technical point. Rhodesia has a mixed economy—the balance has been in favour of the private sector, certainly over the past 12 years—and I am told by my correspondent in Rhodesia, who was an officer in the pension funds there, that the current reserve value of private sector pensions in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia could be 100 million Rhodesian dollars. I am not sure whether that information is correct, but the sum worries me.
I hope that the Minister will note that private sector pensioners, under the new constitution and proceedings against, and liabilities of, the Government, should

have some security of payment of those pensions in Rhodesia and, if they wish, equal rights with public sector pensioners in having their funds remitted externally.

Mr. Luce: With the leave of the House, I shall reply briefly to my hon. Friends.
My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) raised the important question of blocked funds in Salisbury, a matter of considerable anxiety to a number of people in this country. Often they are not well off and have only small funds in Salisbury, but the problem is of great importance to them.
The Ministry of Finance in Salisbury announced on 14 December last year that from 19 December current payments, including pensions, due to United Kingdom individuals who had never lived in Rhodesia or who had emigrated before February 1961 would be freed from restrictions. However, restrictions on balances blocked during the period of UDI will remain. As my hon. Friend, with his financial knowledge, will realise, that is due to the shortage of foreign exchange.
The sooner Rhodesia proceeds to independence on a peaceful basis and the economy gets going again—and there are already good signs in that direction—the better the prospect that foreign exchange will improve and the problem of blocked accounts can be dealt with by the new Government. We shall be in close touch with them, but anyone who feels anxious about the matter and has money that is blocked should get advice from his own bankers on how to pursue the matter. I shall certainly send my hon. Friend a copy of the statement made by the Ministry of Finance in Salisbury about exchange controls.
The question of abductees is slightly outside the terms of the order, but my hon. Friend is right in saying that there have been a number of abductions to Mozambique. We have made representations to the President and to ZANU. If my hon. Friend has any specific cases in mind, I shall be happy to look at them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) has a tremendous knowledge of Rhodesia. He referred to public and private pensions and suggested that it might be better for me to reply to him after the debate. I do not know what he


had in mind, but I readily concur with that suggestion. I shall endeavour to give him an extensive reply on the important points he has raised about public and private pensions.
I commend this order to the House and hope hon. Members will support it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Southern Rhodesia (Legal Proceedings and Public Liabilities) Order 1979 (S.I., 1979, No. 1601), a copy of which was laid before this House on 7 December, be approved.

That, with effect from 25th January, Standing Order No. 5 (Friday sittings) be amended, as follows: 


Line 2, leave out 'eleven o'clock' and insert 'half past nine o'clock '.


Line 10, leave out 'four o'clock, a quarter to five o'clock and half past five o'clock', and insert 'half past two o'clock, a quarter past three o'clock and four o'clock'.


Line 18, leave out 'half past five o'clock' and insert 'four o'clock'.


Line 20, at end add—


'(3A) At eleven o'clock Mr Speaker may interrupt the proceedings in order to permit questions to be asked which are in his opinion of an urgent character and relate either to matters of public importance or to the arrangement of business, statements to be made by Ministers, or personal explanations to be made by Members.


(3B) If the House is in Committee at eleven o'clock, on an occasion when Mr Speaker's intention to permit such questions, statements or explanations has been made known, the Chairman shall leave the Chair without putting any question, and report that the Committee have made progress and ask leave to sit again'.

The motion would, if approved by the House, carry into effect the decision in principle taken on 31 October agreeing with the recommendations contained in paragraph 9.27, of the first report of the Select Committee on Procedure in the Session 1977–78. As the House will recall, the Committee recommended against any general radical reorganisation of sitting hours. However, it put forward this limited proposal whereby the House should on Fridays sit and rise an hour and a half earlier than at present. The object of this proposed change, as stated by the Committee, was that an earlier time of rising on Fridays would be of particular benefit to Members who have to travel long distances to their constituencies. This recommendation met with general support and was adopted by the House on 31 October without a Division.

The effect of the amendment to Standing Orders which this motion proposes is that, from Friday, 25 January, the House will meet at 9.30 am on Friday instead of at 11 o'clock. Business will be inter-

HOUSE OF COMMONS (FRIDAY SITTINGS)

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Before I call the right hon. Gentleman, I wish to indicate that the amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) has been selected.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): I beg to move,

rupted at 2.30 and the adjournment will run until 3 o'clock, when the House will normally rise.

I have already assured the House, and I repeat the assurance tonight, that the Government will move the suspension on Fridays only in special circumstances of urgency and importance.

The motion further provides that Mr. Speaker may interrupt proceedings at 11 o'clock to enable private notice questions to be asked and any ministerial statements and personal explanations to be made. The amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) would require such matters to be dealt with at the commencement of business. I strongly advise the House that it is in the general interest of hon. Members that, where necessary, the interruption should be at 11 am as proposed in the motion. As the House will, I am sure, recognize, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to deal adequately with private notice questions, in particular, in the time available before 9.30 in the


morning, and I have no doubt the authorities of the House would be faced with similar problems. I accordingly believe that an 11 o'clock interruption would, where required, be much more convenient to all concerned, including Back Benchers.

The House authorities have now carried out all the necessary consultations to ensure that the change to an earlier start time can be made smoothly. Hon. Members had made it clear that they would like to see the change made, and I accordingly commend it to the House.

Mr. Michael English: I beg to move, as an amendment, leave out lines 7 to 17.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for providing this small amount of time to discuss this motion. I am also grateful to him for deferring its implementation while he had consultations. I think that, as he is aware, on a previous occasion he had been somewhat misled as to the extent of consultations, and I am grateful for his ready and immediate response and his carrying out of these consultations with all the people affected by this motion.
I have no wish to obstruct the will of the House. The House has decided that it wants to meet at 9.30 am on Fridays and I have no wish to object to the principle of the motion.
The sole point I am disturbed about is the proposed interruption of what is normally private Members' business at 11 am. It is not our practice to interrupt business at all. It is normal and usual in this House, if we are proceeding on a given subject, be it to take recent business, the Southern Rhodesia Order or anything else, that it is not suddenly interrupted except for grave events and crises. There are such crises, and Mr. Speaker would always interrupt the business of the House without the necessity of invoking a Standing Order for a statement of the greatest importance. I remember that we discussed the devaluation of the pound in 1967 at about this hour. At about midnight business was interrupted for a statement on devaluation and questions upon it.
The implication of putting this provision in a Standing Order is that the Government want to interrupt business

for second class statements that are not of such importance for the Speaker automatically to interrupt business.
May I ask hon. Members to consider what is likely to happen? Great passions can be aroused on either side of the House in discussing, for example, the Abortion (Amendment) Bill. There are those who support it and those who will passionately oppose it on Report in a few days from now. At about 11 o'clock in the morning, as we are discussing whether there should be abortions at 24 weeks or 20 weeks of pregnancy, a Minister may stand up and announce to the House that overseas aid is being reduced by 10 per cent. That would be an extraordinary set of circumstances.
The Leader of the House is no doubt technically correct in saying that the effect of my amendment is that statements and PNQs would, if nothing else were done, occur at 9.30 am. Has he not thought of the possibility of putting them at the end of business, at 2.30 pm? On Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday statements and PNQs are normally made at 3.30 pm or slightly later. They could well be made an hour earlier on Friday, at 2.30 pm. That would be helpful to the press and to everyone, and that would occur after the normal interruption at the end of what is usually, though not invariably, private Members' business.
I shall not press the amendment to a Division. If hon. Members wish to negative it, I shall let that happen, but, after we have had a full Session of the operation of this Standing Order in practice, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should move the statements and PNQs to an alternative time, such as 2.30 pm, so as not to interrupt what is not the Government's business. It is unfair that the Government should wish to interrupt private Members' time for their own purposes.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: We agreed this procedure on 31 October, and consultations have taken place on behalf of the official Opposition. This is very much a matter for individual Members. We agree with what the Government are doing. I understand the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), and I hope


that it will be taken into account. Let us look at it.
It takes a long time to shake off being a member of the Government. I do not think that statements should be taken at an earlier time because it takes a long time in the morning to collect together information; and the whole purpose of the change is to allow hon. Members to get to their constituencies in the afternoon.
I support the Government, and I am sure that the Leader of the House will consider the procedure carefully in the light of what my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West has said.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The suggestion made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) is important. If it is found that the taking of statements at 11 am unduly interrupts the business, I hope that the Government will consider the alternative suggestion of 2.30 pm, which would be preferable to 9.30 am, and allow hon. Members to take time to discover what question is coming up.
What matters is the interruption of the debate. It is not taking time from private Members. The same amount of time will be available on Fridays whether it is from 9.30 am to 2.30 pm or 11 am to 4 pm.

Mr. English: The hon. Member may be wrong. If there is a statement at 11 am, and if Mr. Speaker allows half an hour of questions, that half an hour will not be replaced. The interruption of business will still come at 2.30 pm as it presently comes at 4 pm. or as it presently comes at 10 pm on another day of the week. The time will have been lost by private Members.

Mr. Bottomley: The point remains that the time taken up by debate on a statement or questions will be the same as it has been up to now.
I greatly welcome the move to a 9.30 am start on Fridays, even though mine is a London constituency and it is already possible for me to get there in the afternoon for a surgery. The only difference to me—and to the many constituents of mine who work in the House of Commons—is that it will be possible to get home without joining in the rush hour. I greatly welcome that.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I shall not speak for long. I am most unhappy about the proposed change in sitting times from 11 am to 9.30 am. It means putting back from 4 o'clock to 2.30 pm the time for finishing our business. It is a matter of opinion whether the House has already decided that issue.
As I recall, we had a vote on all the recommendations. An amendment was tabled on 31 October 1979 to the effect that all the House needed to do was take note of the recommendations without voting on them. In the event, we voted on the recommendations in toto and I voted as we were recommended to vote by the Leader of the House. I did not think that my personal feelings on one recommendation should guide me to vote against the whole lot. Nevertheless, this is an opportunity to discuss the issue and to voice one's feelings of regret about the matter. I am taking brief advantage of that opportunity.
My main reason for regret is this; I appreciate that in a sense it is a form of special pleading. Some Members of the House are practising members of the Bar. Barristers infrequently stand up and talk about the difficulties of their profession because special pleading is not normally liked in this place and because we are somewhat shy of the accusations—only too easily made—that we are defending our financial interest.
I can assure hon. Members on both sides of the House that a member of the Bar has a duty to appear in court. Very often that duty is performed regardless of the financial benefit. We would as soon not concern ourselves with the financial aspect, but we have a duty to appear at a certain time and at a certain place.
Though it is possible for members of the Bar engaged in a case which has lasted for several days—say, at the Central Criminal Court—to approach the judge and say that a matter of great importance has arisen in the House of Commons and would the court rise to enable us to indulge in our public duty they do not make applications of that kind enthusiastically.
Frequently such an application involves the wasted expenditure of considerable sums of public money. Not only is the time of the court wasted by the necessity


for it to rise for the convenience of counsel who is a Member of this place, but the time of witnesses, judges, solicitors, the staff of the court and juries is wasted at great public cost. Therefore, we are extremely reluctant to take advantage of the opportunity which tradition has given us of approaching the judge in those circumstances and saying "May we rise early in order to satisfy this public duty?"

Mr. English: We can all see the hon. Gentleman's point, which I should have thought applied from Monday to Thursday as well. That is why many lawyers come into the House at a certain hour in the afternoon. I do not understand what difference it makes to sit from 9.30 am to 2.30 pm as distinct from 11 am to 4.30 pm.

Mr. Lawrence: I shall endeavour to enlighten the hon. Gentleman, who probably at this hour of night is not thinking with his usual clarity. From Monday to Thursday, this House does not sit before 2.30 pm, and it is very seldom that a debate begins before 4 pm or later. Today the debate began nearer to 5 pm. It is the normal practice for the courts in London to rise at about 4 pm, and therefore it is perfectly possible for members of the Bar practising in court on a particular day from Monday to Thursday to be here by 4.30 pm. But, of course, on a Friday the same position applies. Members of the Bar could be here at 4 pm in order to vote on a matter of importance. But now it will be very difficult for members of the Bar to be here at 2.30 pm to vote on a matter of importance if they are engaged in a case. [AN HON. MEMBER: "It is a matter of choice."] The hon. Gentleman says that it a matter of choice. He ought to know about this, because I believe that his brother is a distinguished member of the Bar.
If one is engaged in a case which has lasted weeks or days, it is not a matter of choice whether one turns up. One's obligation is to remain in court to continue the case unless a matter of substantial importance arises which brings one to this place, in which case great financial loss is occasioned, not to the barrister but to the State as a whole, for the underwriting of the cost of a trial which is delayed for several hours as a result of the need to come here.
It is not just a question of choice. Frequently my colleagues and I in this place decide that we shall take no work at the Bar for a substantial period in order to be here to take part in Committees in the mornings or to take our part in Question Time in the afternoons. As long as this place remains a place at which members of the Bar can carry on to some extent their practice at the same time as they are Members of Parliament, I believe that the activities of the Members of this place are to some extent enhanced by having practitioners not only from the Bar but from other walks of life. I do not look forward to the day when this place becomes a wholly professional nine-to-five institution.
Therefore, I think it important that I state the difficulty that will face hon. Members who are members of the Bar. There are not many of us. Perhaps the point also applies to other professions or other activities. As long as this place is a mixture of the full-time politician, the mostly full-time politician and the part-time person with another activity, that difficulty will arise, and it will be aggravated by moving the voting time from 4 pm to 2.30 pm. It is a substantial difficulty.
I appreciate that a large number of hon. Members would find it easier to get to their constituencies if the House adjourned at 2.30 pm. It takes me four or five hours to get to my constituency at some bad times of the year when the M1 is chock-a-block. I hope that the Government will soon put an end to those difficulties. There is only a two-lane system between here and the part of Hertfordshire that is on the M1. I also understand that several hon. Members who have constituencies further away than mine get to those constituencies a lot quicker than I get to mine. The question of time is important to many of us. I have long given up being irritated when my constituents tap their watches on a Friday evening as I arrive half-way through a dinner, or after the last course has been served, or half-way through a meeting and say "Ah, late again". It shows a misunderstanding of the many difficulties that face hon. Members.
I understand the advantages of rising early in the afternoon. I shall therefore do no more than voice my unhappiness. I would not wish to press the issue to a


vote. Equally, hon. Members should understand the position of all sorts of people who are connected with the House. They will find it inconvenient to be here at 8.30 am or 9 am in preparation for a debate that starts at 9.30 am. Not everyone lives in London or within half an hour's travel of the House. Many people apart from hon. Members will be inconvenienced. I do not expect the House to be very interested, but I take my daughter to school in Chertsey as often as I can as a method of maintaining the close relationship between my family and I. Of course I shall not be able to that on Fridays. People who work in the Library and many different servants of the House who live outside London will not be able to take their children to school if the House sits at 9.30 am.
I have voiced the issue about which feel quite strongly and I hope that hon. Members will realise that if the sitting time is altered in a way that may suit some hon. Members but not all the issue cannot be quite as simple or as straightforward as it may seem.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has displayed his considerable ability as a lawyer. If his speech was short, it is not surprising that the cost of the law is so high.
I shall be very brief. My right hon. Friend has a fine reputation for assisting the House and I seek two points of clarification from him. To some extent I support the views advanced by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). I am deeply concerned about the interruption of private business, although I am not at all worried about the interruption of Government business that is occasionally also taken on Fridays. However, it is inappropriate to interrupt an important speech during the limited time that is available to private Members. Will my right hon. Friend consider the case put forward by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West, and will he reconsider the time at which Government statements may be made?
I have been here for eight years or more and I have attended many Friday sittings. Governments have a habit of making statements on Fridays. It therefore appears that quite a number of

private Members' motions and Bills will be interrupted by Government statements. Unlike those referred to by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West, they are not usually statements of great import. Will my right hon. Friend look at the points raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West, because there is some validity in his argument? The House accepts changes in procedure too easily and those changes are often damaging to the amount of time available to hon. Members to raise private business.
From time to time the House has been known to sit all night. How will the procedures of the House be changed and by what time will an all-night sitting have to be concluded if we start at 9.30?
I repeat that my right hon. Friend has a fine reputation, as the hon. Member for Nottingham, West stated, for trying to meet the genuine concern of hon. Members. I hope that yet again he will endeavour to meet it.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) for that totally unsolicited tribute, and I am also grateful for the courtesy of reference of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English).
If my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) will forgive me, I shall not follow his argument. He had a perfect right to voice his opinions, but the decision on principle has been taken by the House, and I took it that his speech was more in the nature of an elegy than an argument. I shall respect the melancholy tone of his reflections and not attempt to add to or subtract from them. It was a valuable contribution to our discussions.
I am also grateful to the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) for his support.
I suppose that the business of the previous day will have to end at 9.29 am in order for Friday's business to begin at 9.30 am. The arrangement will be the same as at present except that the time will be moved back one and a half hours.
When I put the proposals to the House on 31 October, I made it clear that the 9.30 am sittings were subject to the proviso that there would be an interruuption at 11 am. Everyone was clear about that.
I am the servant of the House in these matters and I am not attempting to impose my will on anyone. I am trying to find out what the will of the House is and do what is in the best interests of the House. Any change must in the nature of things he experimental. If we find after a period that the changed hours are not working as we hoped, and they are found not to be to the convenience of hon. Members, we must look at them again. Equally, if the practice of interruption at 11 am is found to have some of the undesirable effects in practice that the hon. Member for Nottingham, West fears in principle, we must review it again. We are here to assist the House in these matters, and they affect Back Benchers above all. Their wishes must, should and will be taken into account.

Amendment negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That, with effect from 25 January, Standing Order No. 5 (Friday sittings) be amended, as follows:

Line 2, leave out "eleven o'clock" and insert "half past nine o'clock".

Line 10, leave out "four o'clock, a quarter to five o'clock and half past five o'clock", and insert "half past two o'clock, a quarter past three o'clock and four o'clock".

Line 18, leave out "half past five o'clock" and insert "four o'clock".

Line 20, at end add—
(3A) At eleven o'clock Mr. Speaker may interrupt the proceedings in order to permit questions to be asked which are in his opinion of an urgent character and relate either to matters of public importance or to the arrangement of business, statements to be made by Ministers, or personal explanations to be made by Members.
(3B) If the House is in Committee at eleven o'clock, on an occasion when Mr. Speaker's intention to permit such questions, statements or explanations has been made known, the Chairman shall leave the Chair without putting any question, and report that the Committee have made progress and ask leave to sit again".

HAYES BYPASS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I am grateful for the opportunity, albeit at this late hour, to ventilate the question of the dire necessity for an early start to be made on the Hayes bypass.
Several weeks ago I went to a Sunday morning meeting in the south-west part of Old Southall in Brent Road to meet local residents. With me was a GLC member, Mrs. Yvonne Sieve, and Ealing borough councillors, Rabindara Nath Pathak, Bachitter Singh and Sahata and Percy Sennett. The residents in the areas affected are worried about the environmental effects on their homes and amenities, because Brent Road is an approach way to a large industrial warehousing complex and heavy freight traffic queues to get into the area.
The picture is well drawn in a statement issued by Mrs. Scouse of the Brent Road Residents Association. She said:
Generally the traffic problems in the Southall area are considerable, due mainly to the lack of a direct route between the M4 at Hayes to the A40 in Northolt. The construction of the extension of Parkway to the A40, Western Avenue, would alleviate the congestion in Hayes, Southall and, to some extent, West Drayton".
Mrs. Scouse went on to say that the ever-increasing traffic caused a number of traffic hold-ups, with lorries overtaking cars, pollution, due to fumes, and damage to houses through vibration in the form of cracked ceilings and windows. People have had their cars damaged by commercial vehicles squeezing through small gaps in the traffic. Brick walls and gateposts are damaged or demolished as a result of accidents. All this demonstrates the necessity for a bypass.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson) has on many occasions argued the need for the Hayes bypass, which has been under consideration for far too long. My hon. Friend is unavoidably absent this evening and, therefore, cannot take part in this debate, but he told me earlier this evening that the situation had reached a crisis and that amongst those who are seriously worried about the situation one must


count the police, who are concerned about their ability to discharge their duties. Having lived in Hayes for some time, and now living on the other side of the district, in Harlington, I know what all this adds up to. It may have struck the Parliamentary Secretary as strange that the request for this debate came from the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall, but I know the district well and I walk and motor through it frequently.
When I was in the vicinity of Old Southall a short time ago, a south-west gale force wind was blowing, and when that happens there is a continous nerve-racking noise from air traffic landing at Heathrow airport because the flight path is changed from the normal one. I mention that because one has to get the whole picture to realise how local people are affected. They have increasingly expressed their opposition to the provision of a new fourth terminal at Heathrow because of their concern about traffic congestion and because of the difficulty of travelling into and out of the area. People in the Brent Road area recently staged a demonstration to draw attention to their justifiable grievance
In an Adjournment debate the other week, the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) drew attention to the aircraft noise problem and to the general worry about what was then the coming decision to go ahead with the fourth terminal at Heathrow. He was concerned about the effect on the borough as a whole. The part of my constituency to which I am drawing attention is populated mainly by people of Indian origin, but there are all kinds of people in Old Southall who must be freed from fear for their safety and welfare. The roads in Old Southall were built for horse and cart traffic. Today, car ownership is widespread and there is a scarcity of off-street parking space. The presence of the canal and the Western Region main line railway to the west have always added to civil engineering difficulties in road planning.
Southall is a phenomenon, for several reasons. Some parts of London are depopulating, but that is not the trend in Southall. To avoid having to disperse young children all over the borough, more schools are being provided in the Southall area itself. The Commission for Racial Equality and the old Race Rela-

tions Board took the view that bussing should urgently be phased out.
To add to this concern about congested highways in Southall, there was recently a fatal accident involving a young pregnant woman. She was struck by a freight vehicle which was using roads and trying to negotiate junctions which are entirely unsuitable for such vehicles, and there is a threat of even larger vehicles because of our membership of the EEC.
I am now advised by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment that the decision has been made to allow the fourth terminal at Heathrow. I think that it has been announced in the House. The problems that that will bring in addition to what I have described make the mind boggle. I am relieved to see that the inspector who held a public inquiry into the application of the British Airports Authority has underscored the need for the Hayes bypass as well as for other transport proposals, such as the extension of the Piccadilly Line. In passing, I note that the inspector addressed his mind to the need to find an acceptable way of restraining the use of cars by airport employees. It is expected that the new terminal will provide or generate 11,500 to 13,650 jobs, of which 7,500 to 9,000 will go to people already locally employed. But there must be a dramatic improvement in bus services, with cheap fares, high wages for transport workers and good roads for them to travel on.
I have read the inspector's remarks about how the fourth terminal decision interacts on the necessity for a road such as I have described, which would link the A40 with the M4, coming across to relieve the district of the affliction from which it suffers. My earlier remarks about the congestion in the Brent Road area do not fall directly within the responsibility of the Minister of Transport. That issue will have to be sorted out by the local authorities by providing a spur road, which will both afflict and benefit the industrial users in the district. I am asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington to say that a similar question arises in the part of Hayes that is not far from the area that I have described.
The report on the inspector's findings states:
The Secretaries of State have considered the Inspector's conclusions set out…on the


construction of the Hayes Bypass A312(North) and its relevance to the proposed Fourth Terminal. They see no reason to differ from the Inspector's conclusion that permission for the Fourth Terminal should not be made dependent on any assurance from Central Government relating to the construction of this.
Later he goes so far as to say that the Government should consider a 100 per cent. contribution to the construction of the new road or should facilitate its building.
In a recent written answer, the Parliamentary Secretary told me that the Greater London Council was responsible for the proposal and that it would be for the council to decide the timing within its roads programme, in the light of the public expenditure position. I understand that there are no differences between the GLC and the Minister of Transport about the necessity for the road. But we fear that with the present financial stringency, and the difficulties in which the GLC is placed as a result, the distance between desire to get on with the job and ability to do so may be great and may affect the ultimate building.
What we need, though we have difficulties about the planning aspects in the Northolt area, is a start to provide the roadway between the Uxbridge Road and the M4, which would be a substantial part. I want the Minister to take on board the need for the earliest possible start and the feeling in the whole district, which is now aggravated by the decision to go ahead with the fourth terminal. That means an increase in the amount of aircraft noise and also, inevitably, an increase in the road traffic problem in general. I hope that we shall not witness protracted haggling between the Government, the Minister of Transport and the GLC about who is to pay for the bypass, which would hold up the work.
If there is to be any dispute or negotiation, I hope that, as the Government, the GLC and the borough councils entirely support the bypass, a way will be found to see that the whole project is not held up, because there is no intention to hold up the go-ahead for the fourth terminal, which is considered to be in the national interest. I do not want to argue about that tonight, because I want to concentrate the Parliamentary Secretary's mind on this matter. I hope that he will have a word with his right hon. Friend.
I speak as a member of the new Select Committee on Transport. We are now being introduced to the methods of the Ministry's functioning. This will not be the last time that I shall worry the hon. Gentleman about the matter, unless we have an indication that the Ministry is not only tremendously sympathetic but can help provide practical ways to get on with the job.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) on his success in obtaining a debate on the Hayes bypass. I appreciate the considerable concern that is felt in the area, including the hon. Gentleman's constituency, about the need to produce a bypass between the A40 and the M4, providing relief for Hayes, substantial parts of Ealing and, in particular, Old Southall.
I must make it clear at once that the road scheme we are considering, the proposed Hayes bypass, is a local authority scheme which is primarily the responsibility of the Greater London Council as the highways authority. But I do not object to its being raised this evening. It is also entirely appropriate because it is a particularly important scheme which attracts widespread interest. In addition to the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson) has consistently taken an interest in the road, and he shares his hon. Friend's view that there is an urgent need to begin construction.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) raised the matter with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and me almost as soon as he entered the House, expressing concern about the route but also interest in the traffic relief that a road could produce. Clearly, this is a very important matter for this part of London. It is made especially important both by the existing traffic problems of the area and now by the construction of the fourth terminal at Heathrow, which is likely to generate even more traffic in the area.
This is a local authority scheme. My Department is directly responsible for the trunk road network in the country, and that has to comprise roads of national strategic importance which are part of


the agreed national network. The highways authority has the responsibility for the development of roads, including important roads such as this one, where the main traffic being generated and carried is of local significance. It is of considerable local significance that the GLC is in the lead and that it is its project. As a result, my right hon. Friend and I have no direct control—it is proper that we should not—over such matters as the timing, routing and management of the scheme. That is the responsibility of the GLC. However, because of its importance, I have been in touch with the GLC about the scheme and I am familiar with it. There is no difference between the GLC and myself in deciding that this is a route of considerable importance to the locality which should progress as quickly as possible, subject to the statutory procedures and rights of objection.
The GLC has adopted a clear policy towards the Hayes bypass. It is included in its current transport policy and programme for the next five years. The latest information from the GLC is that, subject to the completion of statutory procedures and the availability of funds, it intends to start work in about 1983 on the construction of the road. In preparing for the next stages of the development of the road, the council will go into formal consultations with all the interested London boroughs and other statutory bodies in a month or so. After that consultation, it will go on to consider the detailed planning and design on which the scheme orders will be based. Then, the project will be placed in detail before the public and there will be an opportunity, if sufficient objection is taken, for a public inquiry and so on.
No doubt, as is always the case with road schemes, there will be those with doubts and hesitations about the route. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North has already drawn the attention of my right hon. Friend and myself to some of the problems. Overall, it seems that there is widespread public acceptance of the need for the road. The GLC held a public consultation exercise in 1978. That exercise produced the astonishing result that 91 per cent. of those who participated were in favour of the scheme.
It will be for the GLC to manage the scheme and to decide whether resources

and so on permit it to keep to that timetable. Among other things which the GLC will have to decide upon are such variations and additions to the scheme as a possible link between the bypass and the Brent Road industrial estate inside the hon. Gentleman's constituency, to which he referred. I have a map of the area in front of me and I have had discussions about the scheme. I appreciate his concern about reducing the impact of industrial traffic and heavy lorries on the roads in the relevant part of the borough of Ealing which the hon. Gentleman represents. I see the importance of the link road with the bypass to ease the burden on the Brent Road area.
I understand that discussions are taking place about the link road between officers of the GLC and the London borough of Ealing. The Ealing officers are examining the feasibility of the proposal. I am also told that the proposal for the link road is supported by a petition from the Brent Road residents association. The petition has been presented to its GLC councillor, who has, in turn, presented it to the council this month. It is a decision for the GLC, and all my contacts with the GLC indicate that it is anxious to see the road progress.
The estimated cost of the scheme stands at£20 million. It rests with the GLC to decide where it places the scheme in relation to all demands on its transportation funds. The contacts I have with the GLC indicate that the present controlling group on the council intends to place high priority on the transport needs of London. There are many areas of London where one has only to drive about to appreciate the needs. Many residents of London are anxiously waiting for road schemes of the kind to which I refer.
In July 1978, the GLC produced a 15-year programme entitled "Roads for London" which set out the possibility of spending no less than£500 million on road schemes during the 1980s. Since that time, the council, in the interests of developing dockland, and with the sympathetic approval of my Department, has put forward the possibility of building a docklands southern relief road. That scheme, if it is progressed, will also involve substantial expenditure by the GLC.
The GLC faces problems in managing its road programmes within a budget


that necessarily has limits. But the council is anxious to give priority to transport and anxious to make progress with many of the more important schemes. I have already set out the programme that the council has announced. I am sure that it will adhere to the fastest possible programme in order to give relief to Hayes within the constraints that any budget must present.
The hon. Member for Southall said that he hoped that progress in Hayes would not be delayed by any kind of haggle between the GLC, supported, no doubt, by the boroughs, and the Department, over who should pay. There is complete agreement at the moment on the policy objective and the need for a relief road. We are anxious in the Department to avoid a haggle. There is no sign of any haggle dveloping.
We have to adhere to the view that the assessment of what is a trunk road must be the same in the borough of Ealing as for the rest of the country. Primary responsibility within the trunk road programme is for the national network, as I have described. But road building in London is eligible for transport supplementary grant. My Department makes a substantial grant available each year to the GLC for its capital programme. We shall look at the eligibility of this scheme for transport supplementary grant. I see no likelihood of difficulty arising in regarding the scheme as being eligible for TSG. The GLC will decide how it marshals its capital programme and in which order schemes are brought forward to qualify for grant from my Department.
London has to advance with a number of important road schemes if some parts of the Greater London area are not to be throttled with traffic. There is often controversy about road schemes in London. There are those who advocate improvements in public transport and believe, therefore, that they should be hostile to road improvements. I believe that the situation is such that the two are not exclusive. It is in the interests of London to encourage the growth and development of a good and reliable public transport system. But there is also a substantial amount of road traffic, unavoidable commuter traffic, heavy industrial traffic and traffic moving in from

all over the country to places like Heathrow airport. Some road developments are essential if traffic problems are not to be created on an insupportable scale ment over who should pay. There is in areas like Old Southall. I trust that this scheme, where no major controversy appears to be aroused, will progress well.
I should like to deal with some detailed points concerning the fourth terminal at Heathrow. The hon. Gentleman has pointed out that my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Trade have given approval to the proposed fourth passenger terminal and that they and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport have had regard to the inspector's recommendation in reaching that conclusion.
The inspector was aware of the traffic problems that would be created. He made certain recommendations about traffic improvements to the area, including a proposal that the Hayes bypass should have 100 per cent. Government funding. He made it clear that approval for the fourth terminal should not be dependent upon an assurance relating to that. Of course, 100 per cent, funding is appropriate only for a scheme that will become part of the trunk network. It would not normally apply to something such as the Hayes bypass. We have not held up approval of the fourth terminal because of the difficulties in guaranteeing 100 per cent, funding. I do not foresee any real possibility of offering 100 per cent, funding. I hope that it reassures those who are anxious about the scheme that I foresee no real difficulty in making it eligible for transport supplementary grant.
We are making other road improvements. We are making trunk road improvements to the main network. These will have some effect in relieving the impact of traffic that will result from the fourth Heathrow terminal. The main access from Heathrow to central London is the M4 and A4. That is the trunk network that is important to us and for which we are primarily responsible.
The development of the M25 is especially important, to carry the traffic that will be coming round the outer edge of London from the north and the south and trying to make its way to the new terminal. We agree with the inspector's


view that work to complete the Egham to Maple Cross section of the M25, especially the section up to the airport spur, should proceed as quickly as possible. We were able to announce the lines for the M25 for the section from Yeoveney to Poyle, including the airport spur, on the same day as approval for the Heathrow fourth terminal was announced.
There is also anxiety that we should proceed quickly with the section of the M25 north of the airport spur. We have to go through the statutory procedures and listen with care to all the representations that are made for and against that section of road. There is no question of any policy doubts on the part of the Government about the need for the M25 orbital route. There is no question of financial restraints having any effect on the progress of construction of the M25. We think that Hayes, Ealing and Southall have much to gain from the relief that will be given once the M25 orbital route is completed. It will attract

a good deal of the national traffic that will be moving in and out of Heathrow following the extension to a fourth terminal.
I do not think that I can go into more detail because issues are involved that are outside the control of my Department. I hope that I have indicated to the hon. Gentleman satisfactory good will towards the scheme. I am in complete agreement with him about the importance of it to his constituents. I conclude with the hope that the GLC finds that it does not face serious difficulties. I hope that it is able to fit in the scheme in a reasonable time within the heavy programme that it has to undertake in London. I hope that in the not too distant future some relief will come to the hon. Gentleman's constituents from the extremely difficult traffic conditions from which they are now suffering.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past One o'clock.